Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd v Hall [2013] EWHC 1185 (QB) (10 May 2013)
The non-competition covenant was wider than reasonably necessary to protect ARFP's legitimate business interests and constituted an unenforceable restraint of trade; the notice period did not count as garden leave for the purpose of reducing the duration of post-termination restrictions.
- Citation
- [2013] EWHC 1185
- Parties
- Claimant: Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd; Defendant: Carlton John Hall
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 May 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Injunction Proceedings / Return Date Hearing Following Interim Injunction
- Outcome
- Non-competition covenant held unenforceable; garden leave argument rejected; further submissions invited on relief and case management.
- Legal Topics
- Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Garden Leave, Post Termination Restrictions, Confidential Information
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ashcourt Rowan Financial Planning Ltd
Claimant
Carlton John Hall
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Injunction Proceedings / Return Date Hearing Following Interim Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Interpretation of garden leave clause and its effect on restrictive covenants
- 2 Enforceability of non-competition covenant as restraint of trade
Ratio Decidendi
The non-competition covenant was wider than reasonably necessary to protect ARFP's legitimate business interests and constituted an unenforceable restraint of trade; the notice period did not count as garden leave for the purpose of reducing the duration of post-termination restrictions.
Court Disposition
Non-competition covenant held unenforceable; garden leave argument rejected; further submissions invited on relief and case management.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment