Wincanton Ltd v Cranny & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 5567 (22 May 2000)

Wincanton Ltd v Cranny & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 5567 (22 May 2000)

Clause 15 was unenforceable due to its excessive width and lack of tailoring to the employee's actual role; clause 16(i) was enforceable due to its self-limiting features, but interlocutory relief was inappropriate as the period of restraint was nearly expired and damages were quantifiable.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 5567
Parties
Claimant: Wincanton; First Defendant: Mr Cranny; Second Defendant: SDM (Second Defendant Company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Interlocutory Injunctions, Enforceability of Employment Contract Terms, Non Competition Clauses, Non Solicitation Clauses
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Interlocutory Injunctions Enforceability of Employment Contract Terms Non Competition Clauses Non Solicitation 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wincanton

Claimant

Mr Cranny

First Defendant

SDM (Second Defendant Company)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants in Mr Cranny's employment contract were enforceable
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted to enforce the covenants
  3. 3 Whether the covenants were too wide to be enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 15 was unenforceable due to its excessive width and lack of tailoring to the employee's actual role; clause 16(i) was enforceable due to its self-limiting features, but interlocutory relief was inappropriate as the period of restraint was nearly expired and damages were quantifiable.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellants to pay half the respondents' costs of the appeal