Cartlidge Morland (a firm) v Thomas [2011] EWHC 2086 (QB) (30 September 2011)

Cartlidge Morland (a firm) v Thomas [2011] EWHC 2086 (QB) (30 September 2011)

The court found that there was a binding collateral agreement, contemporaneous with the written contract, that the restraint of trade covenant would not apply to Mr Thomas's existing clients brought from his previous employment. The evidence, including contemporaneous notes and corroborating testimony, established this variation. Therefore, the restraint of trade covenant was not enforceable against Mr Thomas in respect of those clients. CM was not entitled to a permanent injunction or damages in relation to those clients. Mr Thomas was not in breach of contract in soliciting or acting for his own clients after leaving CM.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2086
Parties
Claimant: Cartlidge Morland (a firm); Defendant: Gerard Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment/contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Expedited Trial Following Interim Injunction
Outcome
Claim dismissed in respect of restraint of trade covenant as applied to Mr Thomas's existing clients; no permanent injunction granted; no damages awarded to CM; no monetary relief to Mr Thomas at this stage.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Non Compete Clauses, Variation of Contract, Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Injunctions
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Non Compete Clauses Variation of Contract Enforceability of Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract +1 more

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cartlidge Morland (a firm)

Claimant

Gerard Thomas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment/contract Dispute / Final Judgment After Expedited Trial Following Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the agreed terms of the employment contract, specifically regarding the restraint of trade covenant?
  2. 2 Was there a variation or collateral agreement excluding Mr Thomas's existing clients from the restraint?
  3. 3 Is the restraint of trade covenant enforceable as against Mr Thomas in respect of his clients?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a binding collateral agreement, contemporaneous with the written contract, that the restraint of trade covenant would not apply to Mr Thomas's existing clients brought from his previous employment. The evidence, including contemporaneous notes and corroborating testimony, established this variation. Therefore, the restraint of trade covenant was not enforceable against Mr Thomas in respect of those clients. CM was not entitled to a permanent injunction or damages in relation to those clients. Mr Thomas was not in breach of contract in soliciting or acting for his own clients after leaving CM.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in respect of restraint of trade covenant as applied to Mr Thomas's existing clients; no permanent injunction granted; no damages awarded to CM; no monetary relief to Mr Thomas at this stage.

Orders

  • Interim injunction discharged.
  • No order for permanent injunction against Mr Thomas regarding his existing clients.