Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724
Restrictive covenant not necessary for the reasonable protection of employer’s business
Facts
The appellant was employed as a canvasser by the respondent. A restrictive covenant in the employment contract provided that the appellant could not, within three years of the termination of his employment, be employed by “any person, firm, or company carrying on or engaged in a business the same as or similar to that of the [respondent], or assist any person employed or assisting in any such business, within twenty-five miles of London aforesaid where the company carry on business.”
Issues
The County Court judge had granted an injunction in favour of the respondent to prevent the appellant from breaching this restrictive covenant. This was reversed by the Divisional Court on the basis that the relevant clause in the contract was too vague to be capable of being enforced by injunction. The Court of Appeal reinstated the order of the County Court. On appeal to the House of Lords, the appellant submitted, inter alia, that the agreement between the parties was an unreasonable restraint on trade and, upon any construction the agreement of a radius of twenty-five miles is wider that was reasonably required for the protection of the respondents.
Decision/Outcome
Viscount Haldane L.C. held that the respondents had failed to show that the restriction went no further than was reasonable for the protection of their business. Notably, there was no evidence that a canvasser, such as the appellant, was likely to have come into possession of any special knowledge of the respondent’s business which would be recognised as a trade secret. Accordingly, the respondents had bound the appellant in a manner which might only have been necessary if they were carrying on a business of a different kind.
Updated 20 March 2026
This article accurately describes the House of Lords decision in Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724. The legal principles set out remain good law. The case continues to be a leading authority on the enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment contracts, particularly the requirement that any restraint must go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. These principles have been consistently applied and affirmed in subsequent case law, including Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 and more recently in cases such as Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed and refined the approach to severance of unreasonable restraints. Readers should note that Tillman is now an important modern authority on this area and should be read alongside Mason for a complete understanding of current law on restrictive covenants in employment. No statutory changes have displaced the common law position described in the article.
