The employers had dismissed their employee manager ‘in deliberate disregard of the terms of the contract’ in such a way as ‘to evince an intention no longer to be bound by the contract.’ The manager had successfully brought an action for wrongful dismissal and then commenced business on his own behalf. His original contract of service contained a clause restricting his right to trade within a specified area for two years after his engagement with the company terminated. The employer brought an action against him for breach of the restraint of trade provision.
Held: The employer’s claim failed. The compay had in effect repudiated the contract, and the employee ‘was thereupon justified in rescinding the contract and treating himself as absolved from the further performance of it on his part’ so as no longer to be bound by the restrictive trade covenant which the employers were seeking to enforce.
[1909] AC 118, (1908) 1 Ch 537, [1908-1910] All ER 619, (1908) 25 TLR 178
England and Wales
Cited by:
Doubted – Campbell v Frisbee ChD 14-Mar-2002
The defendant appealed a summary judgement on the claimant’s claim with respect to her alleged disclosure of details Miss Campbell’s private life. The claimant sought an action for account of profits for breach of the terms of a contract of service. . .
Cited – Frisbee v Campbell CA 14-Oct-2002
The claimant sought an account against her former employee for the disclosures made by her of their activities. The respondent had signed a confidentiality agreement. The respondent counterclaimed for assault. She now appealed from dismissal of her . .
Cited – Stone and Another (T/A Tyre 20) v Fleet Mobile Tyres Ltd CA 31-Aug-2006
The defendants appealed an injunction which prevented them soliciting business from any customer of the claimant for one year, granted pursuant to a restrictive covenant contained in a franchise agreement.
Held: The injunction was discharged. . .
Cited – Rock Refrigeration Limited v Jones and Seward Refrigeration Limited CA 10-Oct-1996
The claimant sought to enforce a post employment restrictive covenant given by the defendant. The defendant replied that the clause was too widely framed and was unreasonable since it applied to a temination of his contract ‘howsoever occasioned’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Contract
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.179824