First Global Locums Ltd & Ors v Cosias

An injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may continue where the defendant’s past conduct makes further harassment likely, but the court should impose the least restraint possible. An order without a time limit is appropriate only exceptionally because breach may expose the defendant to imprisonment.

Post-termination restraints may protect confidential information, goodwill, client relationships and workforce stability. They must protect a legitimate interest and go no further than reasonably necessary. A covenant restraining solicitation may be severed or narrowed where its wording extends beyond the employer’s legitimate business interests.

The claimants obtained without-notice interim injunctions after the defendant’s dismissal from employment. The orders restrained conduct said to amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and enforced post-termination contractual covenants concerning confidential information, solicitation, client relationships and employees.

Following a four-day trial, the court determined whether the factual allegations were proved, whether the harassment restraints should continue, whether the contractual restraints were enforceable, and whether the defendant could rely on an alleged wrongful dismissal or seek damages under the cross-undertaking.

1. The court found the claimants’ evidence reliable and rejected the defendant’s evidence. His aggressive, threatening and intimidating conduct constituted a relevant course of conduct amounting to harassment. The interim restraints were therefore correctly made.

2. Under sections 1 and 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the court could restrain conduct likely, unless restrained, to amount to harassment. The defendant’s irrationality, fluctuating moods, sudden rages and tendency to retaliate justified continuing protection for the second to sixth claimants. Extending protection to all those claimants was justified because confining the order to the principal targets could transfer the risk of retaliation to other employees.

3. An order under the Act should impose the least restraint possible. An order without limit of time should be exceptional because it restricts liberty and breach may result in imprisonment. The appropriate order was continued for 24 months from judgment, having regard to the absence of actual violence, the impulsive nature of the retaliation and the parties’ previous working relationships.

4. The summary dismissal was justified by gross misconduct under the employment contract. The contractual disciplinary procedure did not apply because the defendant had not completed 12 months’ continuous employment.

5. The confidentiality covenant was enforceable insofar as it protected the employer’s accumulated locum information, personal and professional data and client contacts. Information independently obtained from the public domain was not prohibited merely because it coincided with confidential information acquired during employment.

6. The six-month restrictions concerning locums and prospective locums were reasonable because they protected goodwill and were confined to persons with whom the defendant or a colleague had had material dealings. The employee restriction protected a legitimate interest in workforce stability, although the court considered that no loss had resulted from it.

7. The client covenant was linguistically ambiguous. It was construed as restraining solicitation of clients and interference with the employer’s client relationships. The prohibition on interference was justified, but the prohibition on solicitation was too wide because “Client” extended to whole local or health authorities rather than the relevant departments. The words “solicit or otherwise” were therefore to be severed. The question of any damages arising from the overbreadth was left for further submissions.

The judgment records that Mr Justice Simon granted the original without-notice interim injunction on 16 September 2004. It was subsequently continued with variations and the matter proceeded to a speedy trial. No appellate decision is stated.