Pickwell & Anor v Pro Cam CP Ltd [2016] EWHC 1304 (QB) (03 June 2016)

Pickwell & Anor v Pro Cam CP Ltd [2016] EWHC 1304 (QB) (03 June 2016)

The court held that there was sufficient consideration for the restrictive covenants, as the claimants' continued employment and access to clients were conditional on signing the contracts. The covenants protected legitimate business interests and were not unreasonably wide. The claims were dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1304 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: James Pickwell; Claimant: Molly Nicholls; Defendant: Pro Cam CP Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Employment Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claims dismissed; judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Consideration, Enforceability of Employment Contracts, Non Solicitation and Non Dealing Clauses
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Consideration Enforceability of Employment Contracts Non Solicitation and Non Dealing 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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Pickwell

Claimant

Molly Nicholls

Claimant

Pro Cam CP Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restrictive covenants in the claimants' employment contracts are enforceable
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient consideration for the restrictive covenants signed after employment commenced
  3. 3 Whether the covenants protect a legitimate business interest

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was sufficient consideration for the restrictive covenants, as the claimants' continued employment and access to clients were conditional on signing the contracts. The covenants protected legitimate business interests and were not unreasonably wide. The claims were dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • Declaratory relief refused to claimants
  • Restrictive covenants held enforceable