QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Charles Dymoke and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The Hon. Mr Justice Haddon-Cave,MR JUSTICE HADDON-CAVE |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 80 (QB),[2012] EWHC 116 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ11X03120 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 02 February 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 116 (QB)
Mr Justice Haddon-Cave
Case No: HQ11X03120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ORDER
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
David Reade QC and Dale Martin (instructed by Mayer Brown International LLP) for the Claimant
Selwyn Bloch QC, Damian Brown, Craig Rajgopaul-Hicklin (instructed by Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd November, 21st December 2011 and 27th January 2012
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
I handed down my full Judgment in this matter on 27 th January 2012 in which I found for the Claimant on the main issues and granted 'springboard' relief until 28 th April 2012, together with damages in the sum of £314,030.81.
The following three consequential matters remain for determination:
(1) The form of the final Order.
(2) Costs.
(3) Permission to Appeal.
(1) The form of the final Order
There was a debate between the parties as to the form of the Order for final injunctive relief.
The Claimant contended that the form of the Order for final injunctive relief should be the same as the Interim Order which I made on 21 st December 2011 when I indicated to the parties my decision (save for the deletion of the word "own" in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the Interim Order which they were content should come out).
Mr Selwyn Bloch QC, Counsel for the Defendants, raised two objections to the form of the final Order. First, to the inclusion of the words "…or set up…" in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the Interim Order. Second, to inclusion of paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7 dealing with inducing breaches of contract by others. Mr Bloch submitted that the words "…or set up…" were inappropriate and too broad for inclusion in the Order. He argued that they would exclude permissible 'preparatory' acts, in particular those which Mr Hearn had identified in his fifth witness statement as being steps which the Defendant wished to take in order, Mr Bloch explained, that the new venture wished to 'hit the ground running' on 28 th April 2012. Mr Bloch QC also argued that paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7 should be struck out because this was an attempt by the Claimant to enforce unenforceable and open-ended restrictive covenants as to confidentiality 'by the back door'. He said that to include them in the final Order would not be consistent with my finding that the non-compete covenants were unenforceable and, in any event, would be disproportionate in what was already a robust order.
Mr David Reade QC, Counsel for the Claimant, submitted that the Defendants had not previously objected to the formulation of these paragraphs which followed the Interim Order of Mr Nigel Wilkinson QC on 18 th October 2012. He said that the formulation was appropriate as final 'springboard' relief which should be aimed at ameliorating the consequences of the Defendants' unlawful actions. He further argued that confidentiality was an enduring obligation which required indefinite protection in the context of this case.
It was common ground that the form of the final Order is a matter of discretion for the Court.
The Principles
The principles to be applied when formulating 'springboard' relief are, in my view, as follows:
(1) First, the form of the Order and 'springboard' relief should fit the facts.
(2) Second, the 'springboard' relief should reflect and restrain the spectrum of the unlawful activities which made up the 'springboard'.
(3) Third, in granting 'springboard' relief, the Court may restrain otherwise lawful activities taking place on unlawful foundations.
(4) Fourth, the form and content of the 'springboard' relief should match the tensile strength of the 'springboard' unlawfully used by a defendant.
(5) Fifth, in granting 'springboard' relief, the Court should take account of all the circumstances and grant relief which it thinks is fair, just and equitable.
Application of the Principles
First, the form of the Order and 'springboard' relief should fit the facts. In this case, the Defendants were engaged in executing a concerted plan over many months effectively to acquire British Marine's business by stealth without paying for it (Judgment [249] and [251]) which caused significant damage to British Marine (Judgment [149]) and in my view the case calls for the full protection of the Court (Judgment [283]). The Defendants thereby 'stole a march' on the Claimant and gained a significant unlawful advantage (Judgment [284]).
Second, the 'springboard' relief should reflect and restrain the spectrum of the unlawful activities which made up the 'springboard'. In this case, the Defendants obtained a substantial part of their unlawful 'springboard' advantage from the misuse of British Marine's confidential information in furtherance of "Project Phoenix" (Judgment [167]). It is, therefore, appropriate that the injunctive relief should specifically cover the continued misuse of confidential information. Paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7 are part of the 'springboard' relief that I intend to grant and are not separate from it. The purpose of the relief identified in these paragraphs is not indirectly to enforce the employees' confidentiality clauses themselves, but rather to assist in rectifying the unlawful consequences of their breach in the first place. For these reasons, I grant the relief in the form of paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7 but time limit it to the same period as the main 'springboard' relief in paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 8, i.e. 28 th April 2012.
Third, in granting 'springboard' relief, the Court may restrain otherwise lawful activities taking place on unlawful foundations. The purpose of 'springboard' relief is to even up the playing field. It is no answer for the Defendants to say that they should not be restrained from continuing now with 'permissible preparations' for their new venture when they would not have reached this point of preparedness but for their months of previous unlawful activity. In any event, I do not accept that any of the steps listed in Mr Hearn's Fifth Witness Statement amount to permissible 'preparations' (save perhaps for checking the Terms and Conditions and anodyne testing of the IT system).
Fourth, the form and content of the 'springboard' relief should match the tensile strength of the 'springboard' unlawfully used by a defendant. As with the length of 'springboard' relief, so with content thereof: the equation regarding relative advantage gained is kinetic not merely linear (Judgment [284] and [285]).
Fifth, when granting 'springboard' relief, the Court should take account of all the circumstances and grant relief which it thinks is fair, just and equitable. In this case it is relevant for the Court to have regard to the whole history of the Defendants' unlawful conduct and propensities in the case (Judgment [43]-[168]) and their lack of candour in their evidence to the Court (Judgment [46], [110] and [144]). In such cases, the Order should take care to ensure that the Order leaves no ambiguity or 'wriggle room'.
Further considerations
For the avoidance of doubt, it is my intention to continue to restrain the Defendants from any further activities or preparations with regard to "Project Phoenix" until 28 th April 2012, i.e. whether or not such activities or preparations might otherwise be regarded as 'permissible' or 'impermissible'.
For the sake of completeness, I should add that there is no difficulty with including the words "…or set up…". In my view, their import is clear and an order including them would not fall foul of the 'cardinal rule' as to clarity enunciated by Balombe L.J. in Lawrence David Ltd. v. Ashton [1989] 1CR 123 at 132. Furthermore, in my view, the terms of Clause 8 of the employment contracts and written definition of 'confidential information' are sufficiently pellucid so as not to give rise to difficulties of the sort identified in Ocular Sciences Ltd v. Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] R.P.C. 289.
It is noteworthy that this form of Order was not the subject of objection by the Defendants when first granted by the Court in October 2011. Nor does it appear to have caused any difficulty or lack of clarity in practice as to what the Defendants were or were not entitled to do under the injunction. The Order has achieved a stasis on the activities of the Defendants as regards "Project Phoenix" which is what it was intended to achieve. I intend that this should be continued until 28 th April 2012.
For these reasons, I grant final relief by way of 'springboard' relief in the form of the final Order attached to this Judgment, which is materially the same as that granted by me at the Interim Stage and that granted by Mr Nigel Wilkinson QC on 18 th October 2011.
(2) Costs
The Claimant seek costs on an indemnity basis and an interim payment.
The Defendants submit: (i) The Claimant's costs should be awarded on a standard basis not an indemnity basis. (ii) The Claimant should not be awarded costs up to the Order of Parker J. on 25 th August 2011 because it was granted on the basis of non-competition covenants which have been found to have been invalid. (iii) The Claimant should be deprived of 30% of their costs after 25 th August 2011 to reflect the significant increase in time and costs occasioned by the non-competition covenants issue which they lost.
(i) Indemnity costs
The principles governing an award of indemnity costs under CPR 44.4 and 44.5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorma UK Ltd v Chris Bateman and Others
...authorities which are helpful in clarifying the principles. 39 First, I gratefully adopt the analysis of Haddon-Cave J in QBE Management Services UK Ltd v Dymoke [2012] EWHC 80; [2012] IRLR 458, where he draws together the principles from the authorities to date at paragraphs 240 to 247 of......
-
Aquinas Education Ltd v (1) Dorian Miller
...of any head start they have obtained by improper use of information or other property belonging to the Claimant. In QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke [2012] EWHC 80 (QB) Hadden-Cave J reviewed the authorities on springboard injunctions and summarised the principles as follows 240 Fi......
- QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Charles Dymoke and Others
-
Invideous Ltd and Others v Jack Thorogood and Others
...The Claimants at that stage relied primarily on the duty of good faith and fidelity as summarised by Haddon-Cave J in QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke and others [2012] EWHC 80 QB and [2012] EWHC 116 QB. That case concerned three senior employees of a marine insurance company who ......
-
A Month in UK Employment Law - March 2012
...Update TEAM MOVES AND SPRINGBOARD INJUNCTIONS In the recent case of QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke [2012] EWHC 80 (QB), the High Court granted a springboard injunction to restrain a team of ex-employees competing with their former A springboard injunction is a form of equitable r......
-
Dealing With Team Moves And The Scope Of Springboard Injunctions: The McLarens Hong Kong Case
...PTRs. Analysis The Court adopted the legal principles of the English case of QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke & Others [2012] IRLR 458, summarised as First, where a person has obtained a 'head start' as a result of unlawful acts, the court has the power to grant an injunction which......
-
Confidential Information and Data Protection
...at [159]. 64 See paras 11.16–11.28 above. 65 Roger Bullivant v Ellis [1987] ICR 464 at 476; QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke [2012] IRLR 458 at [240]. 66 [2020] SGHC 281. This case was decided on 22 December 2020. 67 BAFCO Singapore Pte Ltd v Lee Tze Seng [2020] SGHC 281 at [7]. 68......