Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd. v Rawlings [2003] EWCA Civ 518 (13 March 2003)

Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd. v Rawlings [2003] EWCA Civ 518 (13 March 2003)

The post-termination restraints, as originally drafted, were too wide in seeking to restrain dealings with any person whom the defendant had introduced or had knowledge of, regardless of recent business contact. The enforceable scope is limited to clients who had done investment business with the claimant in the 12 months preceding termination and with whom the defendant had business dealings during that period. The injunctions must be modified accordingly; the appeal is allowed to that extent.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 518
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd; Respondent/appellant: Nigel Rawlings
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow) / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (injunction) in the High Court, Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; injunctions modified as specified
Legal Topics
Post Termination Restraints, Restrictive Covenants, Injunctions, Constructive Dismissal, Enforceability of Restraint of Trade, Interim Relief
Employment Law Contract Law Post Termination Restraints Restrictive Covenants Injunctions Constructive Dismissal Enforceability of Restraint of Trade Interim Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd

Applicant/respondent

Nigel Rawlings

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal (with Appeal to Follow) / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (injunction) in the High Court, Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether post-termination restraints in the service agreement are enforceable or too wide to be upheld
  2. 2 Whether the interim injunctions granted were appropriate in scope
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy instead of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

The post-termination restraints, as originally drafted, were too wide in seeking to restrain dealings with any person whom the defendant had introduced or had knowledge of, regardless of recent business contact. The enforceable scope is limited to clients who had done investment business with the claimant in the 12 months preceding termination and with whom the defendant had business dealings during that period. The injunctions must be modified accordingly; the appeal is allowed to that extent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; injunctions modified as specified

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed to the extent of modifying the injunctions