Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby

317 words (1 pages) Case Summary

14th Aug 2019 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688

Whether restraint of trade clause enforceable.


The plaintiffs, Herbert Morris Ltd, manufactured hoisting machinery. The defendant, Saxelby, was employed and trained by them as a specialized engineer. His contact contained a covenant that said if he left the company he would not work directly or indirectly on any similar businesses for seven years. When he left the company the plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop him working for a rival company.


The defendant argued that the covenant was in restraint of trade as it restrained the defendant’s ability to make a livelihood. As a result he could not gain employment in a general engineering firm because his training was in one specialized branch of engineering. This made his specialized qualification a hindrance. Therefore, it was not in the public interest for it to be enforced. He also argued that Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535 should not be applied here as that decision referred to a business owner and not an employee.


The House of Lords held that it was in the public interest that someone was free to earn a living. The employer’s legitimate interests was confined to protecting its trade secrets and customers. This covenant went far beyond this and was trying to stop the defendant using his own skills and experience, even though these had been developed by working at the company. This could not be in the public interest. Lord Shaw stated (at 718):

“it is, justly interpreted, a claim to put him in such bondage as regard to his own labour that he must, for seven years of his life, become an exile”.

Therefore, the clause was unenforceable.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles