Springboard Injunctions – Stopping an Unfair Head Start

Springboard Injunctions - Stopping an Unfair Head Start

A springboard injunction is a court order designed to remove an unfair competitive advantage ("head start") gained through unlawful conduct, most commonly the misuse of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of restrictive covenants by a former employee. It is not intended to punish wrongdoing but to neutralise the advantage obtained.

Key Features of Springboard Injunctions

• Purpose: To level the playing field by preventing a defendant from benefiting from an unfair advantage gained through wrongful conduct.

• Temporary Nature: It is usually granted for a limited period corresponding to the duration of the unfair advantage. It is not normally permanent.

• Common Contexts: Former employees leaving with confidential client information, trade secrets, pricing information, business plans, or team-move situations.

A practical example of a scenario where a springboard injunction may be sought is where a senior employee copies a confidential client database before joining a competitor. Even if the information has already been used, a court may prohibit the employee from soliciting those clients for a period equal to the advantage gained, thereby removing the "springboard" benefit.

Case Law on Springboard Injunctions

The leading authorities on springboard injunctions in employment and confidential information cases are:

• 1. Terrapin Ltd v Builders' Supply Co (Hayes) Ltd 1

• This is the foundational case. Roxburgh J described the springboard injunction principle as placing a defendant under a "special disability" to ensure they do not obtain an unfair competitive advantage from wrongdoing. This is the origin of the modern springboard doctrine.

• 2. Roger Bullivant Ltd v Ellis 2

• This is the classic employment law authority. A managing director left with customer contact information and established a competing business. The court granted an injunction preventing the use of the information to gain an unfair advantage.

• 3. Robb v Green 3

• This is an early and influential authority. An employee copied customer lists before leaving employment. The court restrained the use of the information even though much of it was not inherently confidential. The case is often cited as reflecting principles of fair dealing that underpin springboard relief.

• 4. Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler 4

• This was not a springboard case itself, but it is fundamental to determining whether information qualifies for protection after employment ends. Irish and UK courts frequently analyse Faccenda Chicken before considering whether a springboard injunction is appropriate.

Employment lawyers commonly cite the above cases and AIB plc v Diamond 5 as the core line of authority when seeking or resisting a springboard injunction. In the AIB case the High Court granted an interlocutory springboard injunction restraining former AIB employees from soliciting the bank’s customers.   

The Irish Courts’ Position on Springboard Injunctions

Irish courts recognise the concept and have granted springboard relief where former employees sought to exploit confidential customer information or other proprietary information. The Commercial Court has described such injunctions as measures to redress an improper head start obtained by unlawful activity.

Proofs Required for Springboard Injunctions

Irish courts generally require proof of:

• Misuse of confidential information of other unlawful conduct.

• A demonstrable competitive advantage arising from that conduct.

• Evidence that the advantage is continuing.

• A risk of future loss that damages alone cannot adequately address.

Ex Parte Nature of Springboard Injunctions

Springboard injunctions are frequently obtained on an interim ex parte basis (without the other party being present). They can have wide ranging implications and obligations so it is crucial to speak to a solicitor in these circumstances.

Holmes Injunctions Experience

Holmes has vast experience acting for plaintiffs and defendants in seeking and defending injunctions in the High Court and Commercial Court. Our experience includes:

• Acting for employers and employees in urgent injunction applications.

• Seeking injunctive relief in “passing off” and plagiarism disputes.

• Securing one of the first data protection related injunctions in this jurisdiction as a result of unlawful processing of child data by a multinational corporation.

• Acting for numerous public sector clients in injunction applications.

• Obtaining mandatory injunctions to gain possession of charged properties on behalf of receivers.

Please contact a member of the Holmes Litigation & Dispute Resolution Group for further advice.