In two related judgments delivered in April 2025¹, the High Court considered an application by Info Salons Technology Services (HK) Ltd (Info Salons) for an interlocutory injunction to enforce post-termination restrictive covenants against its former Deputy General Manager, Mr Feng Wenguo (Second Defendant), and his newly established company (Third Defendant).

Info Salons, a company providing IT services for event and exhibition organisers, employed Mr Feng until June 2024. Following his resignation, Mr Feng established a competing business.

In March 2025, Info Salons brought an application for interlocutory injunction to enforce post-termination restrictive covenants, alleging that Mr Feng and his company had engaged in business dealings with Informa Markets Asia Ltd (Informa Markets), a longstanding client of Info Salons. Those covenants were due to expire on 7 June 2025.

At an initial hearing on 11 April 2025, the court declined to grant an interim-interim injunction, noting that the evidence suggested Informa Markets had already selected Mr Feng's company to handle an upcoming June jewellery fair. The court emphasised that clients are free to choose their service providers and expressed concern that abruptly restraining Mr Feng could cause irreparable reputational harm and disrupt preparations for the event. The court also found the facts unclear as to whether Mr Feng had actively solicited Informa Markets or was merely responding to their approach.

However, at the substantive hearing on 25 April 2025 before Deputy Judge Kwong, the court came to a different view. Upon reassessing the evidence, the court found that the Defendants had failed to produce any binding agreement demonstrating that Informa Markets had already selected the Third Defendant as its service provider for the June jewellery fair. The court criticised the Defendants for not disclosing any contractual documents despite repeated opportunities, suggesting that no such agreement existed. The court further emphasised that the restrictive covenants were a part of a valid contractual bargain voluntarily accepted by Mr Feng and that holding him to that bargain – unless clearly unenforceable – reflected the principle of commercial fairness. Given the difficulty in quantifying loss, the importance of the client relationship and the short remaining duration of the covenants, the court granted the injunction until 7 June 2025 and expressly clarified that the injunction included dealings with Informa Markets.

While the court reaffirmed that clients like Informa Markets are free to choose their service providers, it emphasised that this freedom does not override an employee's contractual obligations. As highlighted in Croesus Financial Services Ltd v. Bradshaw & Anor², whether a breach of a restrictive covenant has occurred depends on the full context and not merely who initiated contact. In Croesus, Simler J stated:

"It is often assumed there is no solicitation where it is the customer who first contacts the ex-employee.... However, this is not necessarily the case and although the question who made the first contact is relevant, all the circumstances surrounding the contact must be considered, each case depending on its own facts. There is no general rule that whenever a customer initiates contact, an individual can respond and even go so far as making a presentation without breaching a prohibition on solicitation.... Rather, these are questions of facts and degree."

At the interlocutory stage, the court found "it is highly arguable that [Mr Feng] breached the Non-Solicitation Covenant" and that "in any event, [Info Salons] is also entitled to rely on the Non-Competing Covenant".

Despite the Defendants' assertion that the non-compete covenant was invalid bearing in mind its width, the court came to the view that the question of whether Info Salons could justify the width and breadth of the non-compete covenant in light of its legitimate commercial interest is plainly a matter to be tried. Thus, based on the materials available to the court, the court was not in a position to form a definite view but that the balance of convenience weighed in favour of granting an interlocutory injunction.

This case is yet another example of the Hong Kong Court's willingness to grant interlocutory injunctions to stop former employees from breaching their post-termination restrictive covenants. It also serves as a stark warning to employees that they must tread carefully when dealing with customers of their former employer, where they are bound by enforceable post-termination restrictive covenants. Even if they do not initiate contact with those customers, they could still be found to have breached the covenant at a preliminary stage and be subject to an interlocutory injunction. Whether or not a breach had in fact occurred is a matter of fact and degree to be further determined during a full-blown trial.

Acknowledgements to Trainee Solicitor Karen Lee for research and contribution to this article.

1. [2025] HKCFI 1663 and [2025] HKEC 1718
2. [2013] EWHC 3685 (QB)