AMOB MACHINERY LIMITED v ANDREW SMITH-HUGHES & ORS.

An interim injunction is discretionary and is governed by the American Cyanamid principles where an early trial is possible. Springboard relief is available only while an unlawful competitive advantage or head start continues, and it must be limited to the period and nature of that advantage. It is protective rather than punitive. The claimant must identify the precise advantage and show that it will continue without relief. Delay is highly material, particularly where the alleged misuse and competitive activity were known long before the application. Lawful competition must not be restrained. Where the evidence of continuing misuse is limited, damages are adequate and the balance of convenience favours preserving the existing position, interim relief should be refused.

AMOB Machinery Ltd sought interim injunctions against a former employee, a director and a competing company. It alleged misuse of confidential information, breach of contract and fiduciary duty, database-right infringement, conspiracy and inducement of breach. The relief included springboard restrictions, delivery up, statements and forensic examination of electronic devices.

The former employee left in April 2021 and joined the competing business in May 2021. AMOB discovered the alleged copying and customer contacts in July 2021, but issued its application in April 2022. The central issues were whether an injunction was justified under the applicable interlocutory test, whether any unlawful head start still existed, and whether delay, adequacy of damages and the balance of convenience required refusal.

1. Applicable test. The application was governed by the American Cyanamid test because a speedy trial could take place before the proposed 12-month injunction expired. The court considered whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages were adequate for either side, and where the balance of convenience lay. The court was not required finally to resolve disputed evidence or difficult legal questions.
2. Springboard relief. Springboard relief may restrain the fruits of unlawful conduct and restore the parties to the competitive position they would have occupied lawfully. It is not punishment. The unlawful advantage must still exist when relief is sought and must be likely to continue without an injunction. The claimant must identify the precise nature and period of the advantage. The seriousness of the breach does not determine the injunction’s duration.
3. Delay and continuing advantage. AMOB knew, on its own case, by July 2021 that confidential information had been retained, that the former employee had joined a competitor and that customer approaches were occurring. The delay until April 2022 was inordinate and inadequately explained. In this market, any head start would have expired within months, particularly given the defendants’ experience and reputation. A 12-month order was not a benchmark and would have been excessive.
4. Application to the evidence. Although a serious issue existed concerning six alleged contacts, the evidence of continuing misuse, retention or use of the wider customer list was limited. The claimant had won two identified contracts, and the proposed restrictions would have affected a substantial part of the available market. Damages were adequate for the claimant, while the defendants’ cross-undertaking might not have been adequate. The balance of convenience strongly favoured refusal.
5. Disposition. Further delivery up, forensic inspection and pre-trial statements would be pointless or disproportionate at that stage. The application was dismissed.