1E Ltd v Giordimaima

Approved Judgment

This is an application by the claimant, 1E Ltd, for a prohibitory injunction against the defendant, Mr Oliver Giordimaima, a former employee of the claimant. The claimant seeks an order preventing the defendant from being involved in restrictive business, as defined in the applicable contract of employment up to 22 January 2026, and the observance and application of other restrictive covenants contained in that contract of employment up to 22 April 2026. The claimant also seeks an ancillary directions for a speedy trial. The claimant is legally represented by solicitors and counsel. The defendant is not legally represented and is a litigant in person.

Mindful of CPR 25.6, the claimant issued the application notice on 14 October 2025 and the claim form on 15 October 2025. The defendant has confirmed that they received notice of the application on 15 October 2025 and notice of this hearing on 16 October 2025. I am satisfied that the claimant acted in compliance with CPR 25.6 and that the defendant was provided with the appropriate notices and supporting documentation not less than three days prior to the hearing date. There was also a cross-application by the defendant dated 21 October 2025 that seeks to address certain issues raised by the claimant in their application. The defendant seeks for the injunction to be refused or discharged or varied so that the injunction is confined to non-solicitation. The defendant also sought an adjournment to allow them reasonable time to obtain legal representation and gather outstanding witness statements and evidence. The defendant also offered a good faith compromise to the claimant to observe garden leave from 25 October 2025 to 22 January 2026 while continuing to comply with his non-solicitation obligations. The defendant also listed a number of objections to the proposed injunction sought contained on his continuation sheet for box 10. Finally, the defendant sought a draft order seeking to dismiss or vary any injunction, the provision of a non-solicitation undertaken by the defendant and the defendant continuing their employment with Lakeside Software.

In the exhibits to the defendant's cross-application, it appeared that the defendant was in the United States at the time of the hearing yesterday, attending the Gartner Tech Symposium in Florida. Shortly prior to this hearing, the defendant contacted the court and requested that they be permitted to attend the hearing remotely. I exercised my discretion in permitting that remote attendance. At the commencement of the hearing, I explained to the defendant that I was aware of the time zone difference between London and Florida and that the defendant was plainly awake prior to 0330 hours Eastern Standard Time and that the hearing was taking place at 0530 hours EST. I wanted to ensure that the defendant was comfortable and able to participate in the hearing and that the defendant confirmed their intention accordingly. The defendant did not seek an adjournment of the hearing, contrary to one of the points in their cross-application. I reminded the defendant that the hearing was serious and significant and may have a bearing on their current employment. Accordingly, I wanted assurances that the defendant understood the importance of the hearing and that they could not later complain about their participation in a hearing where plainly the defendant had been awake half the night. The defendant stated that they were content to participate in the hearing.

On the evidence, I am satisfied that the defendant was employed by the claimant as its senior vice president, product management, DEX and RMM until 12 August 2025 (we will hear more about DEX later on). The contract of employment signed by the defendant with the claimant on 11 April 2022 contained a suite of post-termination restrictions, including a non-compete covenant which applies until 22 January 2026. It is not disputed that the defendant has taken up employment as chief product officer with Lakeside Software Inc since 2 September 2025. Lakeside Software released a press release on 2 September 2025, where the defendant is profiled as follows:

“Ollie Giordimaima, chief product officer, brings more than 15 years of leadership across leading end-user computing vendors. He most recently shaped product market strategy and innovation at TeamViewer and 1E, including developing market-leading DEX offerings for enterprise and SMB customers. At Lakeside Giordimaima will drive product strategy and innovation to scale DEX solutions for enterprise impact.”

The defendant's post-termination restrictions were drawn to the defendant's attention prior to the termination of his employment in a letter of 21 July 202The defendant at that time did not challenge the restrictions; neither did the defendant take any steps to inform the claimant of his plans to work for Lakeside. The claimant first discovered that the defendant had commenced employment for Lakeside via an announcement published on the defendant's LinkedIn account and the press release issued by Lakeside that I have just referred to. As at early September 2025 no secret was made of the defendant's new role and new employer.

The claimant has been corresponding with the defendant regarding his breaches of the contract since 6 September 2025. The claimant has invited the defendant to undertake that he will cease to work for Lakeside with immediate effect and comply with the post-termination restrictions and the confidentiality obligations. The defendant has not done so, save as to agree to be bound by the non-solicitation clause from his erstwhile contract of employment.

The claimant's claim is to enforce the defendant's post-termination restrictions. It seeks directions for a speedy trial in mid-January 2026, an interim injunction pending trial, confidentiality restrictions in relation to exhibit OS2 and its costs for this application. The claimant provided as part of its evidence in support of its application a witness statement from the CEO of TeamViewer GmbH, Mr Steil. That witness statement is naturally highly relevant to many of the issues in dispute that are central to the claimant's application.

TeamViewer acquired the claimant on 12 February 2025 and is the parent company of the claimant. The claimant is a technology company that provides software solutions focused on digital employee experience, which is what the acronym DEX stands for: Endpoint management, software asset intelligence, remediation automation and real-time endpoint visibility to customers operating in over 50 countries. The claimant operates in a highly competitive sector. It must guard its confidential information in order that it does not lose the competitive edge it has developed in what is described as a crowded marketplace. Those businesses competing with the claimant to provide DEX and endpoint management products include Lakeside. In the opinion of Mr Steil, this is evidenced by Lakeside's announcement of the defendant's appointment, which describes his role with Lakeside as driving product strategy and innovation to scale DEX solutions for enterprise impact. The competitive nature of the claimant and Lakeside's business is demonstrated by the fact that they appear together in key analyst rankings and reports. Further, Mr Steil believes that the role that the defendant is carrying out for Lakeside is largely or wholly the same as the role he carried out for the claimant and may involve developing product that has features of the claimant's DEX product.

The defendant was initially employed by the claimant as its vice president for products. He reported directly to the claimant's chief technology officer, and his role was one of a small number that TeamViewer deemed key or critical when it came to acquire the claimant in 2025. The defendant's job involved working closely with both the claimant's team of engineers and its customers and potential customers, as well as with other of the claimant's business partners. The defendant was second in command in relation to the claimant's product development and strategy from the outset of his employment with the claimant. I accept that the defendant had access to all the claimant's confidential information, which included both technical and commercial...