|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Tenon FM Ltd v Cawley & Ors  EWHC 1972 (QB) (25 July 2018)
Cite as:  EWHC 1972 (QB),  IRLR 435
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
B e f o r e :
Sitting as a High Court Judge
| Tenon FM Limited
|- and -
B38 Support Services Limited & Ors
Chris Quinn (instructed by Wright Hassall LLP) for the 1st Defendant
John Boumphrey (instructed by Chadwick Lawrence LLP for the 2nd, 3rd & 4th Defendants
Hearing dates: 25th July 2018
Crown Copyright ©
His Honour Judge Neil Bidder QC
"For my part I readily accept the last of Mr. Brodie's contentions; but I reject the others. If it will not be possible to hold a trial before the period for which the plaintiff claims to be entitled to an injunction has expired, or substantially expired, it seems to me that justice requires some consideration as to whether the plaintiff would be likely to succeed at a trial. In those circumstances it is not enough to decide merely that there is a serious issue to be tried. The assertion of such an issue should not operate as a lettre de cachet, by which the defendant is prevented from doing that which, as it later turns out, he has a perfect right to do, for the whole or substantially the whole of the period in question. On a wider view of the balance of convenience it may still be right to impose such a restraint, but not unless there has been some assessment of the plaintiff's prospects of success. I would emphasise 'some assessment,' because the courts constantly seek to discourage prolonged interlocutory battles on affidavit evidence. I do not doubt that Lord Diplock, in enunciating the American Cyanamid doctrine, had in mind what its effect would be in that respect. Where an assessment of the prospects of success is required, it is for the judge to control its extent."
"The judge was therefore right in my judgmen t to take into account the strength of the plaintiff's claim. He would have been wrong to regard that as the sole consideration."
"You need to sign your contract! Attached is a new one. Please print off two copies and sign both".
"As per the terms of my contract of employment I will continue to work for the company for the next three months, completing my employment on Friday 3 August 2018."
"Any variation of contract may be agreed between the parties. Consideration (normally some benefit to the employee) must be given in return for the covenant."
"... in the absence of some cogent and rational explanation for this apparent inconsistent treatment undermines the contention that CEF actually had a legitimate interest to protect."