Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd v Hall

Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd v Hall

The non-competition covenant was held to be wider than reasonably necessary to protect ARFP's legitimate business interests, as it prohibited Mr Hall from working in many roles unrelated to client connections or confidential information and lacked sufficient limitation. Therefore, it constituted an unenforceable restraint of trade. The garden leave argument was rejected as Mr Hall was not placed on garden leave in the conventional sense during his notice period, so the notice period does not reduce the duration of the restrictive covenants.

Parties
Claimant: Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd; Defendant: Carlton John Hall
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment / Interlocutory Judgment on Return Date of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Non-competition covenant declared unenforceable as restraint of trade; garden leave argument rejected.
Legal Topics
Post Termination Restrictive Covenants, Garden Leave, Non Competition Clauses, Non Solicitation Clauses, Confidentiality Obligations
Employment Law Contract Law Restraint of Trade Post Termination Restrictive Covenants Garden Leave Non Competition Clauses Non Solicitation Clauses Confidentiality Obligations

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd

Claimant

Carlton John Hall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment / Interlocutory Judgment on Return Date of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of garden leave clause and its effect on restrictive covenants
  2. 2 Enforceability of non-competition covenant as restraint of trade

Ratio Decidendi

The non-competition covenant was held to be wider than reasonably necessary to protect ARFP's legitimate business interests, as it prohibited Mr Hall from working in many roles unrelated to client connections or confidential information and lacked sufficient limitation. Therefore, it constituted an unenforceable restraint of trade. The garden leave argument was rejected as Mr Hall was not placed on garden leave in the conventional sense during his notice period, so the notice period does not reduce the duration of the restrictive covenants.

Court Disposition

Non-competition covenant declared unenforceable as restraint of trade; garden leave argument rejected.