QBE Management Services (UK) Ltd v Dymoke & Ors

Springboard relief must fit the facts, restrain the full spectrum of unlawful conduct that created the advantage, and be fair, just and equitable. It may restrain otherwise lawful acts where they rest on unlawful foundations. Its duration and content should reflect the advantage unlawfully gained.

A time-limited injunction may therefore prohibit further preparations for a competing venture and continuing misuse of confidential information. An order must remain clear. Indemnity costs may be justified where a party's conduct takes the litigation out of the norm. Permission to appeal may be refused despite an arguable need for wider guidance where the case is overwhelmingly clear on its facts.

This was a first-instance determination of consequential matters following the court's earlier judgment for the claimant on the main issues. The earlier judgment had granted springboard relief until 28 April 2012 and damages of £314,030.81.

The remaining issues were the form of final injunctive relief, costs, and the defendants' application for permission to appeal. The defendants objected to restrictions on setting up or preparing a new venture and to provisions addressing inducement of breaches of contract. They also opposed indemnity costs and sought permission to appeal findings concerning springboard relief and damages.

1. Final springboard relief was granted in materially the same form as the interim relief, until 28 April 2012. The court applied five principles: relief must fit the facts; address the spectrum of unlawful activity; may restrain otherwise lawful activity founded on prior wrongdoing; match the strength of the unlawfully acquired advantage; and be fair, just and equitable in all the circumstances.
2. The defendants' concerted conduct had created a substantial unlawful advantage. The injunction could therefore prevent further preparations for the proposed venture, even if some preparations might otherwise have been lawful. The provisions concerning misuse of confidential information and inducing breaches of contract formed part of the time-limited springboard relief. They did not indirectly enforce open-ended confidentiality covenants.
3. The words “or set up” were sufficiently clear. The order did not offend the clarity principle in Lawrence David Ltd. v. Ashton [1989] 1CR 123. The relevant contractual definition of confidential information was also sufficiently clear to avoid the type of difficulty identified in Ocular Sciences Ltd v. Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] R.P.C. 289.
4. Indemnity costs were awarded under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 44.4. The defendants' deliberate unlawful conduct, lack of candour, misleading assurances, and persistence in a case contradicted by contemporaneous documents took the case out of the norm. The claimant received all of its costs, to be assessed if not agreed, and an interim payment of £450,000 on account.
5. No costs reduction was warranted merely because the claimant failed on the non-compete covenants. Springboard relief was the core trial issue. British Midland Tool v Midland International Tooling Ltd [2003] 2 BCLC 523 was distinguishable because the unsuccessful issue there had occupied half the trial.
6. Permission to appeal was refused. Although springboard relief was an area in which further appellate guidance might be useful, this was an overwhelming factual case and not an appropriate vehicle for resolving the suggested tension between restrictive and liberal approaches.

First-instance decision. The judgment records earlier interim orders but no appellate history.