City Site Solutions Limited v Liam Baker & Ors

The claimant sought interim injunctive relief and a speedy trial arising from alleged pre-termination misappropriation of confidential information by three employees and the establishment of a rival business (the fourth defendant). The court applied the American Cyanamid principles and, where relevant, the Nottingham Building Society guidance for mandatory relief.

The judge found, on the evidence available at the interlocutory stage, that the claimant had a protectable legitimate interest in its trade connections, goodwill, confidential information and workforce stability and was likely to succeed in establishing breaches of express and implied confidentiality obligations and post-termination restrictions (clauses 15 and 16 of the September 2021 contract). The court granted interim injunctive relief in modified form: orders for preservation and delivery up of confidential information, a limited affidavit disclosure requirement, device and account imaging, enforcement of the post-termination restrictions against the first defendant, and time-limited springboard relief against the first and fourth defendants. The court refused a universal deletion/destruction order and limited the scope of disclosure and springboard relief to what was proportionate.

Background and parties: City Site Solutions Ltd (the claimant) runs recruitment/resourcing offices in construction. The first to third defendants were employees at its Billericay office; the first defendant incorporated Cornerstone Project Source Ltd (the fourth defendant) and the three employees resigned in late June 2023. The claimant alleged pre-termination copying and transfer of confidential documents to personal and Cornerstone accounts and sought interim injunctive relief, disclosure and imaging orders and springboard relief; the second and third defendants settled by consent (one on final terms, one on interim terms).

Nature of the application: An application (21 July 2023) for interim injunctive relief and directions for an expedited trial, including orders to preserve and deliver up confidential information, affidavit disclosure by the first/fourth defendants, imaging of devices/accounts, enforcement of post-termination restrictions (PTRs in clause 16 of the September 2021 contract), and springboard relief.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the claimant passed the threshold for interim injunctive relief (serious issue, inadequacy of damages, balance of convenience).
• Whether affidavit disclosure by the first and fourth defendants should be ordered and, if so, its scope.
• Whether imaging and inspection orders for devices/accounts should be made.
• Whether post-termination restrictions were enforceable and should be interim enforced against the first defendant.
• Whether springboard relief was appropriate and, if so, in what terms.
• Threshold/contention issues including alleged short notice, alleged unlawful access to the first defendant's personal e-mail, challenge to the existence/terms of the employment contract and constructive dismissal assertions.

Court's reasoning and findings: The judge accepted the American Cyanamid framework and, where mandatory relief was sought, the Nottingham Building Society considerations. The court was satisfied to a high degree of assurance on the evidence that the claimant had a protectable legitimate interest and was likely to establish breaches of confidentiality and other duties by the first defendant and breaches by the fourth defendant. The judge declined to make final factual findings (noting disputes on constructive dismissal and how e-mails were accessed) but held that those disputes did not presently defeat the claimant's entitlement to interim relief.

The court limited the affidavit disclosure ordered to particulars reasonably necessary to preserve and locate confidential material (excluding broad inquisitorial questions about past planning of the competing business). The court granted imaging and inspection orders as proportionate to secure evidence and enforce obligations. The PTRs (three‑month location restriction; nine‑month customer/candidate/solicitation restrictions) were held sufficiently clear and, on the evidence, no wider than reasonably necessary; the court granted interim enforcement of the PTRs. Springboard relief was granted but limited in time (one month after the affidavit deadline) and expressly did not prevent the fourth defendant employing or engaging the first defendant. The court refused an order for deletion/destruction of documents. Directions were given for a speedy trial; costs reserved.

The court granted the claimant interim injunctive relief on modified terms and directed an expedited trial. The judge held that, at the interlocutory stage, the claimant was likely to succeed in proving misappropriation of confidential information, enforceability of express confidentiality obligations (clause 15) and post-termination restrictions (clause 16) in the September 2021 contract. Consequently the court made orders for preservation and delivery up of confidential information, limited affidavit disclosure, device and account imaging, interim enforcement of the PTRs against the first defendant and limited time-limited springboard relief against the first and fourth defendants. The court declined to order deletion/destruction and did not make final findings on alleged unlawful access or dishonesty.