Cartlidge Morland (a firm) v Thomas

Cartlidge Morland (a firm) v Thomas

The restraint of trade covenant in Mr Thomas’s employment contract was expressly varied to exclude clients he brought from his previous employer and those introduced by such clients; CM’s conduct in seeking enforcement and obtaining an interim injunction was inequitable and breached the implied duty of trust and confidence; no breach by Mr Thomas was proved; CM’s claims for injunctive relief and damages fail; Mr Thomas is entitled to damages for loss caused by the interim injunction and CM’s breaches.

Parties
Claimant: Cartlidge Morland; Defendant: Gerard Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
CM’s claims dismissed; interim injunction discharged; declarations granted in favour of Mr Thomas; damages to be quantified at later hearing.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Employment Contract, Injunctions, Damages, Implied Duty of Trust and Confidence
Employment Contract Equity Restraint of Trade Employment Contract Injunctions Damages Implied Duty of Trust and Confidence

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cartlidge Morland

Claimant

Gerard Thomas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the critical findings of fact?
  2. 2 What were the terms of the contract?
  3. 3 Was the employment contract subject to any relevant variation, oral or written condition extraneous contract, collateral contract or promissory estoppel?

Ratio Decidendi

The restraint of trade covenant in Mr Thomas’s employment contract was expressly varied to exclude clients he brought from his previous employer and those introduced by such clients; CM’s conduct in seeking enforcement and obtaining an interim injunction was inequitable and breached the implied duty of trust and confidence; no breach by Mr Thomas was proved; CM’s claims for injunctive relief and damages fail; Mr Thomas is entitled to damages for loss caused by the interim injunction and CM’s breaches.

Court Disposition

CM’s claims dismissed; interim injunction discharged; declarations granted in favour of Mr Thomas; damages to be quantified at later hearing.

Orders

  • Declaration that letter dated 21 May 2004 and client list formed part of Mr Thomas’s employment contract and were received by CM.
  • Declaration that clients brought by Mr Thomas from his previous employer and those introduced by such clients are not covered by the restraint of trade covenant.