Tenon FM Ltd v Cawley & Ors [2018] EWHC 1972 (QB) (25 July 2018)

Tenon FM Ltd v Cawley & Ors [2018] EWHC 1972 (QB) (25 July 2018)

The claimant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or a realistic prospect of success at trial that the restrictive covenants in the 2011 or 2012 unsigned contracts were contractually binding on the first defendant, primarily due to the absence of signed contracts and lack of evidence of consideration for the variations. Consequently, the application for interim injunctive relief against all defendants was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1972
Parties
Claimant: Tenon FM Limited; First Defendant: Susan Cawley; Second Defendant: B38 Support Services Limited; Third Defendant: Third Defendant; Fourth Defendant: Fourth Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunctive Relief / Ruling After on Notice Adjourned Hearing
Outcome
Application for interim injunctive relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interim Injunctions, Constructive Dismissal, Consideration in Contract Variations, Enforceability of Unsigned Contracts
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interim Injunctions Constructive Dismissal Consideration in Contract Variations Enforceability of Unsigned Contracts

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tenon FM Limited

Claimant

Susan Cawley

First Defendant

B38 Support Services Limited

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunctive Relief / Ruling After on Notice Adjourned Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants in unsigned employment contracts are enforceable against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether there was consideration for the 2011 and 2012 contract variations containing restrictive covenants
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to interim injunctive relief against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried or a realistic prospect of success at trial that the restrictive covenants in the 2011 or 2012 unsigned contracts were contractually binding on the first defendant, primarily due to the absence of signed contracts and lack of evidence of consideration for the variations. Consequently, the application for interim injunctive relief against all defendants was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunctive relief dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's applications for interim injunctive relief against all defendants dismissed
  • Approval of Tomlin order between claimant and second, third, and fourth defendants