M&E Global (Staffing) Solutions Ltd & Anor v Tudge & Ors

Interim injunctive relief requires a serious issue to be tried, damages to be inadequate, and the balance of convenience to favour relief. A restrictive covenant is assessed by construing its terms, identifying the legitimate business interest requiring protection, and asking whether the restraint goes no wider than reasonably necessary. Where the restraint will expire before trial, the court may also assess the apparent merits. Springboard relief requires unlawful use of material in which the claimant has a proprietary interest, an unfair competitive advantage, and a continuing advantage likely to persist without relief. Orders for delivery up, deletion and information about use may be ancillary to protection of confidential information.

The claimants, companies supplying contractors to defence installations in Germany, sought urgent interim relief against former and current employees, associated companies and business contacts. They alleged breach of a former employee’s restrictive covenant, misuse of confidential information concerning contractor pay rates and tax arrangements, and an unlawful attempt to take over their workforce and business opportunity.

The application sought enforcement of the covenant, delivery up and deletion of confidential information, affidavit evidence concerning its use, springboard relief, and an expedited trial. The central questions were whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were inadequate, and where the balance of convenience lay.

1. Interim relief. The ordinary American Cyanamid principles applied. The claimants had to show a serious issue to be tried, that damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.
2. Restrictive covenant. The three-stage approach described in TFS Derivatives v Morgan [2005] IRLR 246 was satisfied: the covenant was construed, a legitimate business interest was identified, and the restraint was no wider than reasonably necessary. Because only three or four weeks remained before expiry and trial would occur later, the court also assessed the merits in accordance with Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991] 1 All ER 418. The covenant was apt to cover the recruitment and placement of personnel, and there was cogent evidence of breach assisted or encouraged by other defendants.
3. Confidential information. There was a serious issue as to whether the pay-rate spreadsheet and tax advice were confidential information amounting to trade secrets, and whether they had been taken or misused. Delivery up, deletion and affidavit information were properly ancillary relief, following Aon Ltd v JLT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd [2010] IRLR 600. The claimants also relied on section 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.
4. Springboard relief. The requirements identified in Sun Valley Foods v Vincent [2000] FSR 825 were met at the threshold of a serious issue: possible unlawful use of proprietary material, an unfair competitive advantage, and an advantage continuing until trial. The alleged misuse of information was considered together with the alleged poaching and inducement of employees.
5. Balance of convenience and order. The potential loss to the claimants was substantial and difficult to quantify, while no sufficiently evidenced loss to the defendants had been shown. The proposed springboard provisions were not, on the evidence, a mandatory injunction. The balance of convenience favoured relief, and the parties’ agreed order and directions for a speedy trial were approved.