header-logo header-logo

Interim injunction in employee competition cases

27 May 2022 / Caroline Field
Issue: 7980 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail
82718
Caroline Field explains why delaying agreement of undertakings doesn’t pay…& may cost
  • Covers employee competition cases, specifically interim injunctions granted pending further exploration at trial.
  • Offers practical advice and covers recent caselaw.

Injunctions to stop employees commencing employment with a competitor in breach of a non-compete are routinely granted by the courts. Often, this is in recognition of the difficulties of policing compliance with other covenants and breach of confidentiality claims where confidentiality is the legitimate interest the employer is seeking to protect. An interim injunction ‘holds the ring’ until matters can be fully explored at trial. Enforceability of the covenant (including examination of meaning, whether it goes no further than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest and/or whether a repudiatory breach of contract has caused the covenant to fall away) will typically be considered at trial. Claims follow a familiar pattern.

Pursuant to the rules set down in American Cynamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 ALL ER 504, [1975] AC 396, the court’s threshold for granting

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll