Morgan Fire Protection Limited vs Mogford

This case concerned an application for interim injunctions by Morgan Fire Protection Limited against Robert Peter Mogford and General Fire Protection Limited, involving issues of breach of employment contract and misuse of confidential information.

TLDR:

• Morgan Fire Protection Limited sought interim injunctions against Robert Peter Mogford and General Fire Protection Limited.
• The dispute involved alleged breaches of restrictive covenants and misuse of confidential information.
• The court granted interim injunctions to protect Morgan Fire Protection Limited's business interests.

The claimant, Morgan Fire Protection Limited, is a company that supplies fire safety goods and services. They provide services through field service engineers who are allocated customers via a personal digital assistant device (PDA). Robert Peter Mogford, the first defendant, was a field service engineer for the claimant until his resignation in October 2023. The second defendant, General Fire Protection Limited, is a company incorporated in April 2023, with Mr. Mogford as its sole director and shareholder.

Mr. Mogford's employment contract included a duty of confidentiality and post-termination restrictions on competition. After his resignation, it was alleged that Mr. Mogford solicited the claimant's customers and used confidential information to benefit his new company. Pre-action correspondence between the parties failed to resolve the dispute, leading to the claimant filing a claim for breach of restrictive covenants and misuse of confidential information.

The claimant presented evidence that Mr. Mogford had solicited at least 26 of their customers, providing fire safety services to them on behalf of the second defendant. The claimant sought interim injunctions to prevent further breaches and to protect their business interests. The court had to determine whether there was a serious issue to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and where the balance of convenience lay.

Judge Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that there were serious issues of fact and law to be tried. The court noted that the restrictive covenants in the employment contract were likely enforceable and that the misuse of confidential information could cause significant harm to the claimant's business. The judge also considered the adequacy of damages and concluded that they would not be sufficient to compensate the claimant for the potential loss of business relationships and future revenue.

The court granted interim injunctions, preventing Mr. Mogford from soliciting or dealing with the claimant's customers with whom he had dealt during his employment. The court also ordered Mr. Mogford to deliver up any confidential information in his possession and to provide an affidavit verifying the same. The judge emphasized the importance of protecting the claimant's legitimate business interests and the need for clarity in the enforcement of restrictive covenants.

The case highlights the challenges faced by employers in protecting their business interests when key employees leave to join or start competing businesses. It also underscores the importance of clear and enforceable contractual terms regarding confidentiality and post-termination restrictions.

Legal representatives: Aidan Reay (instructed by Field Fisher) for the claimant, Robert Mogford appearing in person for the first and second defendants.

Judicial Panel: Rory Dunlop KC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1192 (KB)