KB-2025-003244 - [2025] EWHC 2386 (KB)

The Claimant is a boxing promoter, involved in organising high-profile boxing events. The Defendant is, on the Claimant’s case, still engaged as its Head of Boxing.

In early August 2025, the Defendant indicated that he wanted to leave the Claimant. The Claimant contends that it has recently become aware of evidence that the Defendant is, and has for some time, been working with others to launch a rival boxing venture in competition with the Claimant and had deleted certain emails evidencing this.

By an application notice dated 1 September 2025 the Claimant seeks an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from carrying out work for a competitor or potential competitor until trial or further order. The application was argued before me on 12 September 2025, on notice to the Defendant. This is my judgment on the application.

The Claimant’s application was supported by a witness statement from Benjamin Shalom, its founder and CEO and a witness statement from Geoffrey Cunningham, its Chief Legal Officer, both dated 1 September 2025. The Defendant responded to the application by a witness statement dated 11 September 2025. I have considered the contents of this evidence and the wider bundle place before me for the purposes of the hearing, together with the written and oral submissions of both counsel for which I am very grateful.

In cases such as this where there is a dispute as to whether an individual is prevented by contract from carrying out work in competition with his employer or former employer, it is common for the Defendant to offer temporary undertakings until the dispute can be determined at an expedited trial, in accordance with the guidance given by Balcombe LJ in Lawrence David Ltd v Ashton [1989] ICR 123 at 135E-G.

Accordingly, prior to lodging this application, the Claimant sought undertakings from the Defendant that he would not, until his engagement by the Claimant was validly terminated, engage in certain boxing-related conduct without the Claimant’s prior written consent. The Defendant refused to give any such undertakings, relying on the fact that the contractual position between the parties was disputed.

The day before the hearing the Defendant filed the witness statement to which I have referred. In that statement he proposed a compromise position involving certain restrictions on his conduct. This offer was unacceptable to the Claimant such that the application had to be fully argued before me. The Defendant argues that the application should be determined in accordance with his compromise offer.

The Claimant issued a claim form against the Defendant seeking injunctive relief and damages for breach of contract on 1 September 2025. The parties anticipate that there will be an expedited trial commencing in around November 2025.