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 clients Mr Thomas brought with him to Cartlidge Morland. This agreement was evidenced by contemporaneous documents and credible witness testimony. Therefore, the restraint of trade covenant was not enforceable against Mr Thomas in respect of those clients. Cartlidge Morland was not entitled to a permanent injunction or damages for solicitation of those clients. Mr Thomas did not breach his contract in this respect.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2086 (QB)
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 Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed in respect of permanent injunction and damages for solicitation of clients brought by Mr Thomas; no order for damages to Mr Thomas; order for return of documents as appropriate.
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 2 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 Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the agreed terms of the employment contract between Mr Thomas and Cartlidge Morland?
  2. 2 Was the restraint of trade covenant enforceable against Mr Thomas in respect of clients he brought to the firm?
  3. 3 Was there a variation or collateral agreement excluding Mr Thomas's existing clients from the restraint?

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 clients Mr Thomas brought with him to Cartlidge Morland. This agreement was evidenced by contemporaneous documents and credible witness testimony. Therefore, the restraint of trade covenant was not enforceable against Mr Thomas in respect of those clients. Cartlidge Morland was not entitled to a permanent injunction or damages for solicitation of those clients. Mr Thomas did not breach his contract in this respect.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed in respect of permanent injunction and damages for solicitation of clients brought by Mr Thomas; no order for damages to Mr Thomas; order for return of documents as appropriate.

Orders

  • Permanent injunction refused against Mr Thomas in respect of his own clients.
  • No damages awarded to Cartlidge Morland for solicitation of those clients.