Independent Corporate Services Ltd v Stevens

This is an application for an interlocutory injunction in which the plaintiff, Independent Corporate Services Ltd, seeks to restrain the defendant, Geoffrey Stevens, from soliciting clients of the plaintiff and enjoining the defendant to provide certain details of established and potential clients of the plaintiff whom he has contacted directly or indirectly since the defendant ceased his employment with the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim is that by reason of his senior position and the circumstances in which he left the plaintiff's employ, the defendant was under express and implied obligations of confidentiality and fidelity which expressly extended beyond the termination of his employment with the plaintiff, and that further he was in a position of trust and confidence with respect to the plaintiff, which imposed a fiduciary duty upon him. The plaintiff further pleads the defendant directly approached at least two clients of the plaintiff whilst still in the plaintiff's employ, indicating that he was intending to leave that employ and establish a corporate registry business on his own account and that he was soliciting the clients regarding the provision of corporate registry services by him following his leaving the plaintiff's employ. The plaintiff also claims that it is the belief of the plaintiff that the defendant is engaged in a concerted plan to materially damage the commercial interests of the plaintiff in an effort to entice clients to his new business. The plaintiff seeks a range of injunctive relief directed to restraining the defendant from soliciting employees or clients of the plaintiff and providing to the plaintiff, details of specified client information, together with a claim for equitable compensation by reason of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and confidence. The application for interlocutory injunction was opposed by the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff's case did not establish a serious question to be tried and that there was no adequate remedy available to the plaintiff in damages. The court also found that the balance of convenience lay in refusing the application. The application for the interim injunction was refused.