In Berry Recruitment Ltd v Brooke Donovan (2018), the claimant recruitment company (“B”) applied for an interim injunction against the defendant Brooke Donovan to prevent her breaching post-termination restrictive covenants where the evidence clearly demonstrated that breaches had caused significant financial damage to the company and its relationships with customers.
Donovan’s contract contained non-solicitation and non-dealing clauses for a period of six months in respect of B’s restricted customers and candidates, together with post-termination obligations in respect of confidential information to which the defendant had access.
After joining another recruitment agency (“S”), B discovered that Donovan had had dealings with a number of B’s restricted clients. Evidence was produced to the effect that Donovan had falsely informed a number of B’s candidates that they were not required to turn up for shifts with one of B’s clients and had since sent S’s registration packs onto those clients.
Applying American Cyanamid principles:
• There was certainly a serious issue to be tried as Donovan had ignored the non-dealing covenant which consequently had a significant financial impact on B and an impact on B’s relationship with clients.
• B’s willingness to give an undertaking for damages in contrast to Donovan’s failure to appear or offer representation was significant in persuading the Court that when considering the balance of probabilities, the higher threshold was met.
• Damages would not be a sufficient remedy and with the absence of an injunction, B could suffer serious financial losses.
Accordingly, the court granted the injunction.