The DIFC Court of First Instance has granted an urgent interim injunction restraining a former employee and his new employer from continuing their professional relationship, pending the resolution of restrictive covenant claims.
What specific restrictive covenants and employment obligations were at the heart of the dispute between Tysers Insurance Brokers and Jayees Ibrahim Velikkalagath in CFI 082/2025?
The lawsuit concerns an urgent application for injunctive relief filed by Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited against its former employee, Jayees Ibrahim Velikkalagath, and his new employer, Ardonagh Specialty (Mena) Limited (trading as Price Forbes DIFC). The dispute centers on the enforcement of post-termination restrictions contained within the Second Defendant’s employment agreement. Tysers sought to prevent the Second Defendant from commencing employment with a direct competitor and to enforce obligations regarding the protection of confidential information and the return of company property.
The stakes involve the preservation of Tysers’ client base and the protection of proprietary business information within the competitive insurance brokerage sector. The court’s intervention was sought to maintain the status quo until the substantive issues could be litigated. As part of the procedural directions, the court mandated:
The Claimant shall file a Part 7 Claim by 4pm within 7 days from the date of issue of this Order.
This requirement ensures that the interim relief granted is promptly followed by a full statement of case, allowing the defendants to respond to the merits of the breach of contract allegations. Further details regarding the case can be found at the DIFC Courts website.
Which judge presided over the urgent application hearing for CFI 082/2025 in the DIFC Court of First Instance?
The urgent application hearing was presided over by H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani. The hearing took place on 25 September 2025, within the Court of First Instance, following the filing of the application on 18 September 2025. The resulting order was issued on 7 October 2025.
What legal arguments did Tysers Insurance Brokers and the Ardonagh Specialty defendants advance during the urgent application hearing?
Tysers Insurance Brokers Limited argued that the Second Defendant, Jayees Ibrahim Velikkalagath, was in clear breach of his contractual obligations by transitioning to a competitor, Ardonagh Specialty (Mena) Limited, in violation of his restrictive covenants. The Claimant contended that the breach threatened irreparable harm to its business interests, specifically regarding the solicitation of "Relevant Clients" and the potential misuse of confidential information. Tysers relied on the witness statement of Tim Stokes to establish the factual basis for the urgency and the necessity of the injunction.
Conversely, the Defendants appeared before the court to contest the scope and enforceability of the restrictions. While the specific legal counter-arguments are reserved for the upcoming Part 7 proceedings, the Defendants were required to address the Claimant’s application for costs. The court set a strict timeline for the parties to finalize their positions on the costs of the application, ordering:
The Claimant shall submit within 3 days from the date of issue of this Order, submissions on its costs not exceeding 3 pages.
The Defendants were subsequently granted the right to respond, with the court directing:
The Defendants shall submit, within 3 days of service of the Claimant’s submissions on costs, its reply.
What was the precise jurisdictional and doctrinal question the court had to answer regarding the enforceability of the employment agreement in CFI 082/2025?
The court was tasked with determining whether the Claimant had established a sufficient prima facie case to justify the imposition of interim injunctive relief under the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The doctrinal issue involved balancing the Claimant’s right to protect its legitimate business interests—specifically its client relationships and confidential information—against the Second Defendant’s right to work and the First Defendant’s freedom to conduct business.
The court had to assess whether the restrictive covenants in the Second Defendant’s employment agreement were reasonable in scope and duration, and whether the balance of convenience favored the granting of an injunction until 12 November 2025. This required the court to evaluate the evidence of potential breach provided by the Claimant and determine if the "urgent" nature of the application warranted the immediate restraint of the Defendants' professional activities prior to a full trial.
How did H.E. Deputy Chief Justice Ali Al Madhani apply the test for interim injunctive relief in this employment matter?
In granting the injunction, the court exercised its discretion to preserve the position of the parties pending the final determination of the dispute. The judge accepted the undertakings provided by the Claimant, which served as a safeguard against potential damages should the injunction be found to have been wrongly granted. The reasoning focused on the immediate necessity of preventing the Second Defendant from engaging in "Restricted Business" or soliciting "Relevant Clients" during the specified interim period.
The court’s order was comprehensive, covering both the prohibition of employment and the affirmative obligation to return property. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with the underlying employment agreement, stating:
The Claimant shall file a Part 7 Claim by 4pm within 7 days from the date of issue of this Order.
By mandating this, the court ensured that the interim measures were tethered to a formal, ongoing legal process. The judge further enforced the Second Defendant’s obligations under Clause 23 of his employment agreement, requiring him to delete confidential information and return company property, thereby mitigating the risk of ongoing harm to the Claimant’s business operations.
Which specific DIFC statutes and RDC rules were invoked to support the court's order in CFI 082/2025?
The court’s order was issued pursuant to the RDC, which governs the procedures for urgent applications and the granting of interim remedies. While the order does not explicitly cite specific articles of the DIFC Employment Law, it relies heavily on the contractual obligations defined in the Second Defendant’s Employment Agreement, specifically Clause 23. The court’s authority to grant the injunction is derived from the inherent jurisdiction of the DIFC Court of First Instance to grant interim relief to protect the subject matter of a claim.
The procedural framework for the case is governed by the RDC, which dictates the requirements for Part 7 claims and the service of orders. The court’s directive regarding the service of the order is a standard application of RDC requirements to ensure the Defendants are formally notified of their obligations:
This Order shall be served by the Claimant on the Defendants.
How did the court utilize the Second Defendant’s Employment Agreement as the primary authority for the injunctive relief?
The court treated the Employment Agreement as the governing instrument for the conduct of the parties. By ordering the Second Defendant to provide a signed statement confirming his compliance with Clause 23.1(c), the court effectively incorporated the terms of the private contract into the court’s order. This approach demonstrates that the court views the breach of specific contractual clauses—such as the duty to return company property and the duty to delete confidential information—as sufficient grounds for immediate judicial intervention.
The court did not merely restrain the Second Defendant from working; it actively enforced the "return of property" and "deletion of information" clauses. This highlights the court’s reliance on the specific terms of the employment contract to define the scope of the Second Defendant’s post-termination duties. By requiring the Second Defendant to "irretrievably delete" information, the court utilized the contract to provide a concrete, enforceable remedy that goes beyond simple non-solicitation.
What was the final disposition of the urgent application, and what specific orders were made regarding costs and relief?
The court granted the interim injunction, restraining the First Defendant from employing the Second Defendant and restraining the Second Defendant from working for the First Defendant or soliciting clients until 12 November 2025. Additionally, the Second Defendant was ordered to return all company property and provide a signed declaration of compliance within 48 working hours.
Regarding costs, the court ordered the Defendants to pay the costs of the urgent application. The court established a clear timeline for the assessment of these costs, requiring the Claimant to submit its costs submissions within 3 days of the order, followed by a 3-day window for the Defendants to reply. The court also mandated that the Claimant initiate a Part 7 claim within 7 days to ensure the dispute proceeds through the formal litigation process.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners handling restrictive covenant disputes in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Court of First Instance is prepared to act decisively to protect business interests in the insurance sector through interim injunctive relief. Practitioners should note that the court is willing to enforce both negative covenants (restraining employment and solicitation) and positive obligations (returning property and deleting data) simultaneously.
The requirement to file a Part 7 claim within 7 days of an interim order underscores the court’s expectation that urgent applications must be followed by substantive litigation. Litigants must be prepared to provide detailed evidence of breach and be ready to move quickly to a full trial. The case also highlights the importance of clearly drafted employment agreements, as the court’s order was explicitly tied to the specific clauses of the Second Defendant’s contract. Future litigants should anticipate that the court will prioritize the preservation of the status quo while ensuring that the underlying merits are addressed in a timely manner.
Where can I read the full judgment in Tysers Insurance Brokers v Ardonagh Specialty (Mena) [2025] DIFC CFI 082?
The full order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0822025-tysers-insurance-brokers-limited-v-1-ardonagh-specialty-mena-limited-t-price-forbes-difc-price-forbes-partners-2-jay or via the CDN link: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-082-2025_20251007.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC)
- Employment Agreement (Clause 23)