Maris Interiors LLP v Pleckinger & Ors

For interlocutory relief concerning post-employment obligations, the court applies the American Cyanamid approach: whether there is a serious issue to be tried, whether damages are adequate, and whether the balance of convenience and interests of justice favour relief. Injunctive relief requires an evidential foundation; suspicion of a possible future breach is insufficient for a quia timet injunction. Orders requiring detailed explanations or information are exceptional. The ordinary course is for pleadings and witness statements to define the issues. Such orders should be necessary and proportionate, having regard to the claimant’s ability to plead, costs, protection of the business and the policing of orders.

The claimant, an office design and fit-out business, brought proceedings after former partners and employees moved to a competitor. It alleged misuse of confidential information, retention and use of company property, solicitation of clients and procurement of breaches of post-termination restrictions.

The claimant sought joinder, interim restraints, delivery-up and information orders. The court considered separately the position of former employees, a former partner and the competing company. The central issues were whether serious issues arose and whether interim restraints or information orders were justified before trial.

1. Outcome. The fourth and fifth defendants were joined because triable issues existed concerning their contracts and possible damages. No interim relief or information orders were made against them. Restraints and limited information relief were granted against the sixth and seventh defendants, with consequential orders and trial directions to be agreed.
2. The court applied the American Cyanamid principles to post-employment restrictive covenants, as recognised in Lawrence David Ltd v Ashton [1989] ICR 123. The questions were whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were adequate, and whether the balance of convenience and interests of justice required relief.
3. There were serious triable issues that the sixth and seventh defendants had used confidential information, retained or used company property, and might have participated in procuring contractual breaches. Damages would not adequately protect the claimant against further breaches. Interim restraints were therefore justified.
4. Detailed orders requiring explanations about evidence were exceptional. Applying the six factors identified in Aon Ltd v JLT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd [2009] EWHC 348 (QB), [2010] IRLR 600, the claimant could plead its case using information already obtained. Further orders would increase costs, address only part of the evidence, and were unnecessary and disproportionate.
5. There was no evidence that the fourth and fifth defendants had retained property, misused confidential information or solicited clients. Suspicion alone did not justify a quia timet injunction. The court also considered the restriction concerning dealings with estate agents likely to be too broad to enforce, but left that issue for trial.