Capgemini India Private Ltd & Anor v Krishnan
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROBERT OWEN QC
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Capgemini sought an interim injunction against former employees who joined a competitor, Infosys, arguing violation of restrictive covenants. The defendants contended the covenants were unreasonable restraints of trade. The court found that damages were an adequate remedy, dismissing the application for an interim injunction. The case highlights legal principles around public policy in compromise agreements, enforceability of restrictive clauses, and adequacy of damages.
Judgment
HIS HONOUR JUDGE OWEN QC :
This is an application for an interim injunction brought by the claimants, Capgemini India Private Limited, a company incorporated under the law of the Republic of India and Capgemini Financial Services UK Limited in the following terms, namely that the defendants shall not accept custom or business of or in any other way deal with any existing customer with (a), who he had business dealings on behalf of Capgemini or a member of the group within the last six months of his employment with them; and/or (b), in relation to which he had access to confidential information or commercially sensitive information within the last six months of his employment and that such injunction should last until the trial of these proceedings or the 7 May 2014 in respect of the first and third defendants and 14 May 2014 in respect of the second defendant.
The circumstances of this matter are highly unusual. The principal issues which arise before me are first, whether the defendants, former employees of Capgemini, who gave formal undertakings in writing with the benefit of independent legal advice, after the termination of employment, in accordance with the restriction of trade covenant within their contracts of employment, may now simply withdraw from that undertaking and argue that the clause in question is and was unenforceable as being an unreasonable and unlawful restraint in trade, or whether, as Capgemini contend, the fact of the undertaking, given voluntarily so as to avoid legal proceedings for an order in the same terms as the undertaking, precludes the defendants now from arguing that the clause is and was unenforceable. Secondly, whether in any event an interim injunction ought (or ought not) to be granted in accordance with established principles in light of the circumstances, and, as I have indicated, it seems to me, highly unusual facts.
The brief facts relating to the defendants’ employment with the claimants and the history of these proceedings may be summarised as follows: The work undertaken by the employers for and on behalf of the claimants concerned a project called Vision Plus Service provided by the claimant to its clients, First Data. In mid-August 2013 the claimants lost that contract, which was to be taken over and has been by separate company, Infosys Limited, who provided services to First Data since January 2012. The claimants’ contract in relation to that was due to end on 31 March 2014. Thus, the defendants