Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
1st Choice Recruitment v Hancock
[2003] EWHC 2332 (QB), [2003] All ER (D) 64 (Sep)
Court: QBD
Judgment Date: 11/09/2003
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd v Rawlings | [2003] EWCA Civ 518, [2003] All ER (D) 181 (Mar) | CA | 13/03/200 | |
Applied | American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd | [1975] AC 396, [1975] 1 All ER 504, [1975] 2 WLR 316, [1975] FSR 101, [1975] RPC 513, 119 Sol Jo 136 | HL | circa 1975 |
INJUNCTIONS - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - BREACH OF COVENANT - APPLICATION FOR INTERIM RELIEF
The claimants were a recruitment firm, which had employed the defendant initially as a consultant and then as a branch manager at their Bedford branch. Her contract of employment contained a number of restrictive covenants which provided inter alia, that in the event of her ceasing to be employed by the claimants, for a period of six months thereafter, she would not solicit, endeavour to entice away, or otherwise deal with the claimants' customers, or take up employment with another business offering recruitment services within a ten mile radius of the claimants' office. In May 2003, the defendant handed in her notice to the claimants in order to take up employment with another recruitment agency in Bedford. At a meeting, the claimants did not object to the defendant taking up employment with another recruitment agent in Bedford, and while there was some factual dispute as to exactly what was said, obtained verbal assurances from the defendant that she would not poach their staff or clients. After the defendant commenced her new employment, a dispute arose as to whether the defendant had been soliciting the claimants' clients. The defendant offered undertakings not to solicit the claimants' employees or clients. The claimants were not satisfied by those assurances and issued proceedings, seeking injunctive relief enforcing the covenants in full. The parties agreed that a full trial of the matter was unlikely.
Held - Applying settled principles, and having regard to the fact that the matter was likely to be disposed of without a full trial, a triable issue clearly arose. In respect of the radial exclusion clause, it was doubtful that in the circumstances, such a clause would be enforceable, and therefore injunctive relief would not be given. However, the non-dealing clause was a relatively common restraint in employment contracts and in the instant case pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of the former employer's connection with its clients. Moreover, the balance of convenience fell in favour of granting relief since it would not prevent the defendant's co-employees from dealing with the claimants' clients. Accordingly, injunctive relief would be granted enforcing the non-dealing clause.