Mulvein v. Murray [1908] ScotLR 364 (31 January 1908)

Mulvein v. Murray [1908] ScotLR 364 (31 January 1908)

The restriction against selling to or canvassing the pursuer's customers for twelve months was reasonable and valid, but the restriction against selling or travelling in any towns or districts traded in by the pursuer was too wide, indefinite, and unreasonable. The valid part could be enforced if severable, but the period of restriction had expired, making interdict unnecessary.

Citation
[1908] ScotLR 364
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: George Mulvein; Defender/appellant: John Murray
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
31 January 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division
Outcome
Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; interdict refused as unnecessary due to expiry of restriction period; defender assoilzied quoad ultra.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Severability of Contract, Validity of Restrictive Covenants
Contract Law Employment Law Restraint of Trade Severability of Contract Validity of Restrictive Covenants

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Mulvein

Pursuer/respondent

John Murray

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff Court to Court of Session, Inner House, Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenant in the employment contract was reasonable and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the restriction was severable so as to allow partial enforcement
  3. 3 Whether the restriction was too wide or indefinite in area and trade

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction against selling to or canvassing the pursuer's customers for twelve months was reasonable and valid, but the restriction against selling or travelling in any towns or districts traded in by the pursuer was too wide, indefinite, and unreasonable. The valid part could be enforced if severable, but the period of restriction had expired, making interdict unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute recalled; interdict refused as unnecessary due to expiry of restriction period; defender assoilzied quoad ultra.

Orders

  • Recall previous interlocutor
  • Find defender canvassed pursuer's customers in contravention of agreement