Case No. KB-2025-003035 - [2025] EWHC 2654 (KB)

Mrs Hampton submitted that she should not be subject to an interim injunction as she had not dealt with clients while on maternity leave. It followed that she did not have contact with restricted clients during almost the entirety of the 12-month period before the termination of her employment. She said that she was not involved with the claimant’s business in any meaningful way during that period. There was no reason why she should not be free on her own, and independently of Mr Marchant if needs be, to continue to solicit business in the South Kensington area. She submitted that there were no, or very few, potential property owners who would fall within the scope of interim injunctive relief in her case.

In my judgment this misses the point. The claimant’s case is that Mrs Hampton at the least conspired with Mr Marchant to breach his post-termination obligations. It cannot realistically be suggested that she is not at present a proper defendant in a claim that concerns an alleged conspiracy. There is no evidence that she intends to act independently of Mr Marchant. They have established a business together. There is no suggestion that Mrs Hampton is willing to forego that business. As Mr Northall submitted, the injunction would lose a great deal of force if its terms could be avoided through Mrs Hampton’s solicitation of clients.