KB-2025-002427 - [2025] EWHC 1993 (KB)

Springboard relief

The Claimant seeks “springboard relief” in the terms set out at paragraph 7 of the draft order:

“The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Respondents must not carry on or be engaged, concerned or interested in any business within the United Kingdom that provides goods or services in competition with the Applicant, including any such business operated by the First Respondent.”

The competing arguments

D4 and D5 both argued that such an order would be disproportionate. Mr Mahmood described it as “draconian” whilst Mr Cobill described its drafting as impermissibly wide and opaque. As noted above, D5 expressed particular concern as to the impact on his family of such a provision as he was the sole breadwinner.

In the course of argument, I indicated that I was concerned that the terms currently sought were too wide. I questioned whether an order limited in time to one month after the date for provision of Affidavit evidence or further order would be more proportionate. Counsel for D4 and D5 acknowledged that that would address their concerns. The Claimant did not object to confining the order in this way.