Pertemps Medical Group Ltd v Ladak [2020] EWHC 163 (QB)

Application by the Claimant for further consideration of an interim injunction concerning the Defendant’s breach of a settlement agreement.

The Defendant's employment as the Claimant's CEO was terminated, and he entered into a settlement agreement whereby he agreed not to make adverse or derogatory comments about the Claimant, and not to do anything that might bring the Claimant into disrepute. In light of the Defendant's subsequent conduct, the Claimant obtained an interim injunction preventing the Defendant from acting in breach of the settlement agreement or in breach of section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ("1997 Act"). The Defendant argued that he had at all times acted as a bona fide whistle-blower, including the making of protected disclosures. The Claimant then alleged that the Defendant had breached the interim injunction, and the matter was listed for further consideration of the injunction.

The High Court held that, on the evidence, it was likely (subject to any protected disclosures that might be identified) that the Claimant would succeed in establishing a breach of the conditions in the settlement agreement, and that the Claimant would succeed at trial in its claim for injunctive relief to prevent further breaches; the Court held further that the Claimant was entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to section 3A(2)(b) of the 1997 Act. Accordingly, interim relief pending trial or further order would be granted, without making any findings as to the truth of the serious allegations made by the Defendant.

Published: 17/02/2020 15:02

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions