• Springboard employees moves
• Breach of contract
• What else should I know?

What is a springboard injunction?

Essentially, a springboard injunction prevents former employees from achieving ‘springboard’ success through their unfair advantage. Springboard injunctions issue handicaps to the former employee that prevents them from committing certain acts that give them an unfair start within their industry.

A springboard injunction is less specific than other types of injunction because it applies to any act that gives the former employee an unfair advantage – commonly served where there has been misuse of a former employer’s ‘inside information’. Although a civil injunction would require a party to do or refrain from doing something, the party has already committed an act in this situation.

Misuse of confidential information.

The case of Roger Bullivant vs. Ellis (1987) gives a good example of a court remedy relating to the misuse of confidential information.

Mr. Ellis was the managing director at Mr. Bullivants’ company, but then upon leaving the business, he set up a company in direct competition. Ellis took with him confidential information, which included a card index holding the contact details of Bullivants’ clients. The issue went to the High Court, which then granted an injunction. It prevented Ellis from entering into any contracts with the clients found in the card index until further order. When Ellis appealed, he argued that the injunction should not apply to any clients not in the card index. He lost the appeal on the grounds that he had made unlawful use of Bullivants’ property. Ellis could not complain that the law couldn’t distinguish which of his clients were lawful or unlawful.

This kind of doctrine applies in similar cases in modern times. Ex-employees who have taken confidential information from their employers to create opportunities for their or someone else’s business will make themselves and others liable for a springboard injunction.

Springboard employee moves.

In the case of UBS Wealth Management Ltd vs. Vestra Wealth LLP & Others (1974) an interim springboard injunction was issued when there was no exchange of information, only employees. 52 employees simultaneously left UBS to join former UBS senior employee David Scott in his new company Vestra Wealth. The staff had made prior arrangements to leave the company simultaneously and join Scott in his new venture.

In the court, the judge saw the appropriate use of a springboard injunction, stating that the unfair advantage of a previous employee is not limited to the misuse of information. The pre-meditated conversation between the employees that left UBS sought detriment to UBS and an unprofessional advantage to Vestra.

Breach of contract.

Midas IT Services vs. Opus Portfolio Ltd (1999) was the first instance of a springboard injunction that extended to neutralising an advantage gained through a breach of contract. Former staff members were taking unfair advantage of serious breaches of their contract of employment. Therefore, the judge decided that these injunctions should cover a wider principle of unfair advantage rather than being limited to information misuse and team moves.

The scope and length that springboard injunctions last for.

In the case of Bullivant vs. Ellis, the injunction lasted for a term based on how long the court saw Ellis had received an unfair advantage. The duration of the injunction was applied ‘until judgement or further order’.

This tends to be the standard protocol, and these injunctions will usually apply for specified periods as opposed to an indefinite period. The court considers these principles when deciding on the length and scope of a springboard injunction:

• The length of time that the unlawful achievement would have been gained, relative to the detriment of the claimant
• The amount of data/information misused by the former employee
• Factors relative to the individual case, such as mitigating and aggravating circumstances
• In the case of a team move, the court will consider factors like time lengths of training a new team, hiring juniors as opposed to seniors, the short and long term effects of planning a mass team exodus, and the impact that might have on a company

What else should I know?

Obviously if you believe that a springboard injunction may be necessary for your company, you should consider timing.

In AMOB Machinery Ltd v Smith-Hughes [2022] IRLR 975 HC, the claimant company sought a 12-month springboard injunction against former key employee and a company for whom the first defendant worked for. The claimant alleged that, prior to leaving the claimant company, the first defendant had uploaded confidential information.

The court found that on the claimant’s own case it knew as early as 7 July 2021 that the first defendant was misusing confidential information but took no steps to prevent the defendants’ alleged misconduct until the claim was first intimated on 10 December 2021 and that it did not issue an application until 12 April 2022. The application was dismissed with the conclusion that the delay in making an application of this kind was inordinate.

You must therefore act quickly with the benefit of expert legal advice.