Thomas v Farr Plc & Anor

Thomas v Farr Plc & Anor

The non-competition clause was reasonable and enforceable because Mr Thomas, as managing director, was exposed to confidential information of strategic and operational importance to Farr, the clause was limited to the social housing insurance sector, and the 12-month duration was justified to protect Farr's legitimate interests.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Huw John Phillip Thomas; Respondent: Farr PLC; Respondent: Hanover Park Commercial Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (preliminary Issue on Enforceability of Restrictive Covenant)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Confidential Information, Non Competition Clauses
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Confidential Information Non Competition Clauses

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Huw John Phillip Thomas

Appellant

Farr PLC

Respondent

Hanover Park Commercial Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (preliminary Issue on Enforceability of Restrictive Covenant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-competition clause in the employment contract was an unreasonable restraint of trade and thus unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether Farr had a legitimate interest to protect by the clause
  3. 3 Whether the non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses provided adequate protection

Ratio Decidendi

The non-competition clause was reasonable and enforceable because Mr Thomas, as managing director, was exposed to confidential information of strategic and operational importance to Farr, the clause was limited to the social housing insurance sector, and the 12-month duration was justified to protect Farr's legitimate interests.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.