Willis Ltd & Anor v Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group Plc & Ors

An interim springboard injunction addresses the continuing effect of past wrongdoing, not merely whether the original acts are complete. The court asks whether the wrongdoing continues to confer a present or future benefit and whether relief is needed to prevent that advantage. A short injunction may restrain recruitment or employment of staff who approach the respondent where the claimant’s business has been destabilised and it is difficult to distinguish spontaneous approaches from unlawful solicitation. The fact that affected employees work for subsidiaries does not by itself defeat relief where the alleged wrongdoer owed duties to their employers and the respondents may have participated in the wrongdoing. An appellate court may intervene where the first-instance judge fails to address the continuing-benefit question.

Willis Ltd and another appealed the refusal by His Honour Judge Seymour QC in the High Court to grant an interim injunction pending the return date. A substantial number of employees in Willis’s Fine Art, Jewellery and Specie Risks Division had resigned to join competing businesses operated by Jardine Lloyd Thompson. Willis alleged coordinated recruitment, breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties, and an unlawful springboard advantage. The proposed injunction sought to prevent further solicitation, recruitment or employment of Willis staff, including United States employees engaged by subsidiary companies. The judge accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried but considered that there was no useful purpose in granting relief. The central issues were whether past wrongdoing continued to confer a benefit and whether the balance of convenience favoured interim protection.

1. Appeal allowed. Elias LJ would set aside the refusal and grant injunctions broadly in the terms sought until the return date, expected within one or two weeks, omitting paragraph 1.8(ii). Detailed drafting points were left to the parties. The claimants were awarded their costs in the case.
2. Continuing springboard benefit. Elias LJ held that the relevant question was whether the effect of past wrongdoing continued to confer a present or future benefit on the wrongdoer which the court should prevent. It was insufficient to regard the wrongdoing as complete and therefore conclude that an injunction had no purpose. Lewison LJ characterised the failure to address that continuing effect as an error of principle.
3. Employees of subsidiaries. The fact that the United States employees were not employed by the claimants did not defeat relief. The former executive owed contractual and fiduciary duties to his employers. If the respondents participated in conduct encouraging those employees to leave for the business he was joining, they too might be acting unlawfully.
4. Balance of convenience and scope. There was a realistic prospect of further recruitment, including from the United States operation. The balance of convenience decisively favoured a short injunction because the claimants’ business had been destabilised, while respondents who did not intend to recruit would suffer little prejudice. The restraint could extend to employing staff who approached the respondents. Excluding such staff would be difficult to police and could undermine the protection sought. The exceptional nature of springboard injunctions, discussed with reference to UBS Investoral Wealth [2008] IRL 654 and Tullett Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers [2009] EWHC 819, had greater force where a long injunction was sought than where the court was temporarily holding the position pending the return date.
5. The appellate restraint principle in Hadmore v Hamilton [1983] AC 191 did not prevent intervention because the judge had failed to address a legally material question and had therefore erred in principle. Sir Colin Rimer agreed with both judgments.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and granted interim injunctions broadly in the terms sought, subject to the agreed omission and detailed drafting points.
• High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division): His Honour Judge Seymour QC accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried but refused an interim injunction because he considered that there was no useful purpose in granting it.