The claimants were part of a group of companies who were providing laboratory services which included providing Covid-19 testing.  The first defendant was a former employee of the claimant.   He began to work for the claimant in 2014 and was appointed to their executive board rising to the position of Chief Operating Officer in 2015.  His contract contained a number of post-termination restrictive covenants.

The defendant left his position as Chief Operating Officer with the claimant in May 2021.  In June, the claimant became aware that he was going to work for another company, a second defendant to the action.   The defendant denied that the company he was going to work for was going to be establishing a Covid-19 testing aspect to its business.   He also denied even being employed by the second defendant despite the fact there was an email outlining that he was being employed.  As a result of this, the claimant sought to utilise the restrictive covenant to stop the competition, soliciting clients and releasing confidential material.

The claimant sought an interim injunction to stop the defendant from undertaking activities with the second defendant company until 29th September 2021 which is when the duration of the restrictive covenant would come to an end.

The High Court granted the injunction.  This required an examination of the American Cyanamid principles which looks at whether it is just and convenient to grant the injunction.  It was outlined that when it came to employment matters the bar was lower for employers to demonstrate that it was a serious issue to be tried.  Instead, it will suffice that their claim was not vexatious and the restrictive covenant was not too restrictive. Considering that contracting parties should be held to their bargain it was held that the prima facie position is validity.   It was held that the covenants here were reasonable in their scope and effect.  As a result, it was just and convenient for the injunction to be granted.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates a move away from the Industrial/Employment Tribunal cases but still demonstrates an important aspect of employer/employee relations.  The use of restrictive covenants can be incredibly important in protecting business especially in areas where customers could be poached or confidential information could be utilised for a new employer.  This case demonstrates how they can be given effect through an injunction and it is useful to outline that the bar is lower for injunctions vis-à-vis employment.  This would make it easier to obtain an injunction where it is unfortunately required due to a purported breach of the covenant.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/2909.html