The High Court has refused Lee Bradshaw’s application for interlocutory injunctions in a dispute over his employment at the Copper Bar and Grill and an alleged partnership with William Murphy. The court noted undertakings given by the defendants pending the full hearing and directed steps towards an early determination of the proceedings.
Bradshaw is employed by Copper Bar and Grill Limited as a chef. He says he and William Murphy agreed to form a partnership connected with the restaurant and bar business. Murphy disputes that any partnership agreement existed. The judgment records that the company, incorporated in June 2012, carries on the Copper Bar and Grill business. Bradshaw resigned as a company director in August 2012 and transferred his shares in January 2013; the reasons for those steps were disputed.
The application arose after a meeting on 11 December 2013. The parties disagreed about what was said: Bradshaw understood he was being placed on paid leave, while Murphy said he told Bradshaw he was dismissed and that four weeks’ pay would be offered on disputed conditions. The court did not resolve that disagreement at this interlocutory stage.
The defendants undertook not to dismiss Bradshaw for misconduct, including matters raised at the meeting and the “Facebook issue”, and not to tell third parties that his employment had been terminated on those grounds. They also undertook not to dissipate or dispose of the company’s assets or business outside the ordinary course, or wind up the company, without giving seven days’ notice. Bradshaw could then return to court to seek further relief.
On employment, the court said the undertakings addressed the threatened dismissal on misconduct grounds. It found no serious issue on the evidence before it about the company’s entitlement to terminate employment in accordance with the contractual terms, including any implied reasonable notice. It therefore refused an injunction against termination of employment, subject to the undertakings.
On the alleged partnership, the court was not satisfied that Bradshaw had shown an arguable agreement for the two men personally to carry on a business in common. It accepted that he had shown an arguable case for certain financial payments for his contribution to establishing the company’s business. Even if the agreement could be argued to be a partnership, the court considered damages an adequate remedy for the alleged financial entitlements. It refused the requested partnership injunctions.
The court refused all interlocutory relief, noted the defendants’ undertakings in its order, allowed either side to apply concerning those undertakings, and directed the exchange of pleadings. The matter was remitted to the Chancery List with leave to seek an early hearing date. The judgment did not determine the underlying disputes at trial.