Dyson Technology Ltd v Strutt [2005] EWHC 2814 (Ch) (25 November 2005)

Dyson Technology Ltd v Strutt [2005] EWHC 2814 (Ch) (25 November 2005)

Clause 19.1 is valid and enforceable as it is no wider than reasonably necessary to protect Dyson's legitimate business interests in confidential information acquired by Mr Strutt during his employment. The clause is clear in its terms, reasonable in duration (12 months), and appropriately lacks territorial limitation given the international nature of Dyson's business. The existence of a confidentiality clause does not render the non-compete clause unreasonable, as the latter addresses practical difficulties in policing misuse of confidential information. The court has discretion to grant an injunction, and in the absence of disproportionate hardship to Mr Strutt, enforcement is appropriate.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2814 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Dyson Technology Limited; Defendant: Ben Strutt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (employment/restrictive Covenant) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted that clause 19.1 is valid and enforceable; injunction granted to restrain Mr Strutt from breaching clause 19.1 until 23 April 2006.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Confidential Information, Enforceability of Employment Contract Terms, Restraint of Trade
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Confidential Information Enforceability of Employment Contract Terms Restraint of Trade

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dyson Technology Limited

Claimant

Ben Strutt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (employment/restrictive Covenant) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 19.1 of Mr Strutt's employment contract is valid and enforceable as a restrictive covenant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to an injunction to restrain Mr Strutt from breaching clause 19.1

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 19.1 is valid and enforceable as it is no wider than reasonably necessary to protect Dyson's legitimate business interests in confidential information acquired by Mr Strutt during his employment. The clause is clear in its terms, reasonable in duration (12 months), and appropriately lacks territorial limitation given the international nature of Dyson's business. The existence of a confidentiality clause does not render the non-compete clause unreasonable, as the latter addresses practical difficulties in policing misuse of confidential information. The court has discretion to grant an injunction, and in the absence of disproportionate hardship to Mr Strutt, enforcement is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted that clause 19.1 is valid and enforceable; injunction granted to restrain Mr Strutt from breaching clause 19.1 until 23 April 2006.

Orders

  • Declaration that clause 19.1 is valid and enforceable.
  • Injunction restraining Mr Strutt from engaging in the design of vacuum cleaners for a competitor until 23 April 2006.