Jump to content

Springboard injunction

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Huggums537 (talk | contribs) at 02:36, 1 August 2021 (Changing short description from "Type of court order in English and Welsh kaw" to "type of court order in English and Welsh law" (Shortdesc helper)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A springboard injunction is a specific type of court order issued in English and Welsh law, which is typically used to prevent a former employee from misusing their former employer's confidential information. [1] [2] It potentially has relevance in other jurisdictions. [3]

The classic, albeit very wide definition of the springboard injunction was given by Roxburgh J in Terrapin Ltd v Builders’ Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd [1967] RPC 375:[4], namely that it is an injunction whereby a party is: “placed under a special disability in the field of competition in order to ensure that he does not get an unfair start."[4]

In recent years however the springboard injunction has been confined to cases where former employees threaten to abuse confidential information acquired during the currency of their employment.

What criteria needs to be satisfied to obtain a springboard injunction

Springboard injunctions must meet the pre-requisite conditions that are standard for the granting of injunctions,[5] however, there are additional criteria that the court must be satisfied with before this particular type of relief[6]

  • There must be a misuse of confidential information by the former employee and/or past breaches of contract either the former employee or others they might be acting in concert with (UBS Wealth Management (UK) Ltd & Another v Vestra Wealth LLP & Oth [2008] EWHC 1974 ).[7]
  • The former employees must have an unfair advantage as a result of the breaches of contract and the unfair advantage must still exist at the time the injunction is sought (Sun Valley Foods Ltd v Vincent [2000] FSR 825).
  • There must be a risk of future economic loss to the former employer which is caused by the former employees’ unfair advantage.[7]
  • The sole and intended purpose of the injunction is to protect against future losses; not to punish previous breaches by the former employee.[7]
  • The seriousness of the breach of the former employee's conduct cannot have any bearing on the period for which the injunction should be granted. The court will only consider the effect of the breach upon the former employer in the sense of the extent to which the former employee has gained as an illegitimate advantage (Sectrack NV v Satamatics Ltd [2007] EWHC 3003[8]).

References

  1. ^ "Glossary: Springboard Injunction". Thomson Reuters Practical Law. Retrieved 2021-07-15.
  2. ^ "Court of Appeal gives Guidance on Springboard Injunctions". Addkeshaw Goddard. 2019-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-15.
  3. ^ Pinsler, Jeffrey (September 2017). "The Springboard Injunction and its Future Potential in Singapore". Law Gazette. Retrieved 2021-07-15.
  4. ^ a b dls (2021-01-20). "Terrapin v Builders Supply Co (Hayes): ChD 1967". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 2021-03-28.
  5. ^ "PART 25 - INTERIM REMEDIES AND SECURITY FOR COSTS - Civil Procedure Rules". www.justice.gov.uk. Retrieved 2021-03-28.
  6. ^ "Alston Asquith | Springboard Injunctions".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  7. ^ a b c "UBS Wealth Management (UK) Ltd v Vestra Wealth Llp [2008] EWHC 1974 (QB) (04 August 2008)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2021-03-28.
  8. ^ "Sectrack NV v Satamatics Ltd & Anor [2007] EWHC 3003 (Comm) (19 December 2007)". www.bailii.org. Retrieved 2021-03-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Springboard_injunction&oldid=1036520128"