CYPRUS Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alexandros Gavrielides and Demetris Yiannakou, Scordis, Papapetrou & Co LLC
by the employee can provide a basis for granting a springboard injunction. Such conduct may include the following: • misuse of the former employers’ confidential infor- mation (such as client lists, production information and business strategies) and/or trade secrets; • conduct amounting to a breach of the former employees’ contract of employment or duties, such as the taking of preparatory steps, prior to the termination of the employer-employee relationship, to set up a rival business or to encourage clients of the employer to terminate their cooperation with the employer; and • misuse of confidential information regarding the employees of the former employer (such as infor- mation about their pay and other terms of employ- ment) in order to encourage such employees to terminate their contracts of employment to be employed by the newly established business of the former employee or a competitor of the former employer. Springboard relief in Cyprus The first case where the Cypriot courts have acknowl- edged the availability of “springboard relief” under Cypriot law is the case of L. Protopapa & Co LLC and another v George Pamboridis LLC (Action No 2160/2020 of the District Court of Nicosia, judge- ment dated 31/3/2023, Civil Appeal No E190/2021, judgement dated 10 April 2024). This case concerned a former partner in a law firm who, following her dis- missal, joined a rival practice. The former employer claimed that, even before her departure, the former partner sent emails to clients and business associ- ates, informing them of her intention to join a compet- ing practice and encouraging them to end their coop- eration with the former employer. The former employer applied, inter alia, for an injunction preventing the for- mer employee from contacting her former employer’s clients or from using any confidential information she acquired in the course of her employment. The first instance court granted the requested injunction on an ex-parte basis. However, the Court of Appeal later set aside this injunction for several reasons. They found that there was insufficient evidence to show that the former partner had access to her previous employer’s client records. Additionally, there were doubts about
whether the email addresses of the former employ- er’s clients qualified as “trade secrets.” The Court of Appeal also noted that the first instance court should not have issued an injunction without a specified time limit. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the Cypriot courts have the power, under section 32 of the Court of Justice Law of Cyprus, to grant springboard relief in appropriate cases and adopted the key principles set out in QBE (supra). Importantly, the Court of Appeal emphasised that springboard relief is not available only in cases where the former employee breaches the express terms of their contract of employment, but also where they breach their implied duties, including a duty of loyalty, fiduciary duties, and a duty of confidentiality. Recent Cypriot case law The Cypriot Court of Appeal’s judgment in the above case has encouraged former employers to apply for springboard relief. In the last two years, there have been a number of cases in which injunctions against former employees were sought, and the Cypriot courts have shown an increasing willingness to grant springboard relief in appropriate cases. In Action No 509/2025 of the District Court of Nicosia, Delicacy Food Ltd v S.C. and another, a case where our firm acted for the claimant/applicant, a leading Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) company in Cyprus, sought an injunction against the former head of its sales, marketing and purchasing department, preventing him, inter alia, from contacting any of the company’s clients or suppliers for the purpose of con- cluding sale or supply agreements for competitive products as well as from contacting any employees of the company for the purpose of encouraging them to terminate their employment with the company. The court granted the requested injunction on the basis of evidence which showed that significant loss was caused to the company as a result of actions by the former employee (many of which took place prior to termination of his employment) which amounted to breaches of his duties of fidelity and confidenti- ality and which were intended to provide the former employee with a head start in establishing a rival busi- ness in cooperation with a competitor of his former employer.
257 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook