Thurstan Hoskin & Partners v Jewill Hill & Bennett (A Firm) & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 249 (5 February 2002)

Thurstan Hoskin & Partners v Jewill Hill & Bennett (A Firm) & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 249 (5 February 2002)

The covenant in Clause 28.2, as modified and reaffirmed in the settlement agreement, was reasonable and enforceable in the context of a small provincial firm, as it protected a legitimate interest, was limited in time and scope, and was entered into with legal advice and consideration. The reaffirmation in the settlement agreement altered the circumstances, making the covenant enforceable even if it extended beyond clients with whom Mr Burton had direct contact.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 249
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Thurstan Hoskin & Partners; First Defendant/appellant: Jewill Hill & Bennett (a firm); Second Defendant/appellant: Bryan William Burton; Third Defendant/appellant: Robert Peter Kidd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Truro County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Non Solicitation Covenants, Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants, Settlement Agreements
Contract Law Employment Law Restraint of Trade Non Solicitation Covenants Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants Settlement Agreements

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thurstan Hoskin & Partners

Claimant/respondent

Jewill Hill & Bennett (a firm)

First Defendant/appellant

Bryan William Burton

Second Defendant/appellant

Robert Peter Kidd

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Truro County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 28.2 of the Deed of Partnership is enforceable or void as an unreasonable restraint of trade
  2. 2 Whether reaffirmation of the covenant in a settlement agreement affects enforceability

Ratio Decidendi

The covenant in Clause 28.2, as modified and reaffirmed in the settlement agreement, was reasonable and enforceable in the context of a small provincial firm, as it protected a legitimate interest, was limited in time and scope, and was entered into with legal advice and consideration. The reaffirmation in the settlement agreement altered the circumstances, making the covenant enforceable even if it extended beyond clients with whom Mr Burton had direct contact.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Costs awarded to the respondents
  • Stay of interim order for costs lifted