Kau Media Group Limited v Thomas Hart

Kau Media Group Limited v Thomas Hart

The Claimant failed to establish that MiSmile Media Ltd was in competition with Kau Media Group Limited or that it had a legitimate proprietary interest requiring protection by the PTRs. The non-compete clause was overly broad and unreasonable, and the non-solicitation/non-dealing clause was not engaged or justified. The restrictions were not proportionate or necessary, and lacked evidentiary support for enforcement.

Parties
Claimant: Kau Media Group Limited; Defendant: Thomas Hart
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment / Final Judgment After Speedy Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Post Termination Restrictions, Non Compete Clauses, Non Solicitation Clauses, Confidential Information
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Post Termination Restrictions Non Compete Clauses Non Solicitation Clauses Confidential Information

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kau Media Group Limited

Claimant

Thomas Hart

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment / Final Judgment After Speedy Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the post-termination restrictions (PTRs) in the employment contract enforceable against the Defendant?
  2. 2 Is the Defendant's proposed employment with MiSmile Media Ltd in breach of the PTRs?
  3. 3 Does the Claimant have a legitimate business interest requiring protection by the PTRs?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to establish that MiSmile Media Ltd was in competition with Kau Media Group Limited or that it had a legitimate proprietary interest requiring protection by the PTRs. The non-compete clause was overly broad and unreasonable, and the non-solicitation/non-dealing clause was not engaged or justified. The restrictions were not proportionate or necessary, and lacked evidentiary support for enforcement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for injunction refused
  • Defendant's undertakings discharged