PAT Systems v Neilly

PAT Systems v Neilly

Clause 8.1 was unreasonable and unenforceable at the time of contract formation; subsequent variation did not revive the covenant; claimant's summary dismissal was wrongful and cannot enforce the restrictive covenant.

Parties
Claimant: PAT SYSTEMS; Defendant: GRAEME NEILLY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Employment / Trial of Liability Issues
Outcome
claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Wrongful Dismissal, Variation of Contract, Injunctive Relief
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Wrongful Dismissal Variation of Contract Injunctive Relief

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

Parties

PAT SYSTEMS

Claimant

GRAEME NEILLY

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment / Trial of Liability Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 8.1 applies to prevent defendant's employment with TT
  2. 2 Whether clause 8.1 is enforceable as a restraint of trade
  3. 3 Whether summary dismissal disentitles claimant from enforcing the covenant

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 8.1 was unreasonable and unenforceable at the time of contract formation; subsequent variation did not revive the covenant; claimant's summary dismissal was wrongful and cannot enforce the restrictive covenant.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed

Orders

  • Assessment of damages under counterclaim referred to Master
  • Undertaking as regards confidential information to continue