The High Court made an interlocutory order barring breach of confidence in a dispute between Murgitroyd & Company Limited and former employee Barry Purdy. It declined at this stage to restrain Mr Purdy from competing and proposed that the applicability and enforceability of the non-compete clause be tried as a preliminary issue on a strict timetable.
Mr Justice Clarke delivered the judgment on 14 April 2005. Murgitroyd provided intellectual property services and had a Dublin office. It hired Mr Purdy, a European Patent Attorney, under a written service agreement in 2001. The agreement included 12-month non-compete and non-solicitation clauses, as well as a confidentiality term.
Mr Purdy gave evidence that in February 2002 he told the company’s chief executive, Keith Young, that he wanted to leave the service agreement, and that Mr Young agreed he could remain employed without it. Mr Young disputed that account. The judge said the conflict of evidence would need to be resolved at trial. The parties also disputed whether the agreement continued after September 2004 and whether the non-compete restriction would be an unreasonable restraint on trade. The court said those matters could not be resolved at the interlocutory stage, but found there was a fair issue to be tried over the clause’s applicability.
Mr Purdy left the company on 19 January 2005 and began practising as Purdy & Associates from premises on Adelaide Road in Dublin. Murgitroyd said two major clients, the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland and Massachusetts General Hospital, indicated shortly after his departure that they intended to transfer their work to his firm. Mr Purdy denied soliciting them and provided correspondence in support of his denial. The judge was not satisfied there was evidence of solicitation at that stage and did not grant an injunction on that issue, while allowing Murgitroyd liberty to apply if evidence emerged.
The court declined an interim non-compete injunction because the balance of convenience did not favour it if the issue could be brought to trial quickly. The judge considered that an injunction would effectively put Mr Purdy’s competing business on hold. He also found damages would not be an adequate remedy for Murgitroyd if it ultimately succeeded, given the potential loss of clients and financial loss that might not be recoverable. The judgment proposed an expedited preliminary trial; it does not record a final determination of the contractual disputes.
Murgitroyd opposed accepting Mr Purdy’s confidentiality undertaking, citing an apparent use of a company credit card to pay for an advertisement and emails of confidential documents to his own email address. The judge made no concluded finding on those allegations, but ordered interim protection against breach of confidence.