Stanley Ltd v. Hanway [1911] ScotLR 757 (23 May 1911)

Stanley Ltd v. Hanway [1911] ScotLR 757 (23 May 1911)

The respondent failed to aver a relevant or sufficient case for tacit relocation or an implied contract for a further year. His own pleadings were inconsistent and self-destructive, as he admitted both pending negotiations for a new contract and continued service under the old terms. The restrictive covenant from the original contract remained enforceable, and the complainers were entitled to interdict.

Citation
[1911] ScotLR 757
Parties
Complainer: Stanley Limited; Respondent: Louis Hanway
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 May 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Granting Interdict
Outcome
appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to
Legal Topics
Master and Servant, Implied Contract, Tacit Relocation, Restrictive Covenants, Breach of Contract, Injunction/interdict
Employment Law Contract Law Master and Servant Implied Contract Tacit Relocation Restrictive Covenants Breach of Contract Injunction/interdict

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley Limited

Complainer

Louis Hanway

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor Granting Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was bound by the restrictive covenant after the expiry of the original contract period
  2. 2 Whether there was tacit relocation or an implied contract for a further year
  3. 3 Whether breach of contract by the employer released the employee from post-employment restrictions

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to aver a relevant or sufficient case for tacit relocation or an implied contract for a further year. His own pleadings were inconsistent and self-destructive, as he admitted both pending negotiations for a new contract and continued service under the old terms. The restrictive covenant from the original contract remained enforceable, and the complainers were entitled to interdict.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to

Orders

  • Interdict granted as craved restraining the respondent from engaging in competing business within the specified area and period.