Monex Europe Ltd v Pothecary & Anor [2019] EWHC 1714 (QB) (21 June 2019)

Monex Europe Ltd v Pothecary & Anor [2019] EWHC 1714 (QB) (21 June 2019)

The non-competition covenant was unreasonably wide in geographic scope and duration, restraining the defendants from working in any foreign exchange business worldwide for six months, which was more than reasonably necessary to protect Monex's legitimate business interests. The evidence did not support the need for such a broad restraint, and narrower restrictions would have sufficed. Therefore, the covenant was unenforceable and no interim injunction should be granted.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1714
Parties
Claimant: Monex Europe Limited; Defendant: Charles Pothecary; Defendant: Guy Kaufman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Non Competition Clauses, Interim Injunctions, Confidential Information, Post Termination Restrictions
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Non Competition Clauses Interim Injunctions Confidential Information Post Termination Restrictions

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monex Europe Limited

Claimant

Charles Pothecary

Defendant

Guy Kaufman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application / Application for Interim Relief Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-competition covenant in the defendants' employment contracts is enforceable as a reasonable restraint of trade
  2. 2 Whether Monex is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from working for a competitor

Ratio Decidendi

The non-competition covenant was unreasonably wide in geographic scope and duration, restraining the defendants from working in any foreign exchange business worldwide for six months, which was more than reasonably necessary to protect Monex's legitimate business interests. The evidence did not support the need for such a broad restraint, and narrower restrictions would have sufficed. Therefore, the covenant was unenforceable and no interim injunction should be granted.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Monex's application for an interim injunction is refused