Restraint Of Trade Case Study

1361 Words3 Pages

The restraint of trade implies that ‘’a man contracts to give up some freedom which otherwise he would have had’’. The autonomy of an individual is crucial in creating and maintaining contractual relationships. The law should not limit the person’s liberty to exercise their profession or skill. On the other hand, free flow of labour and resources is essential for a market economy to be functioning. Both principles are benefiting the community and the effort to reconcile these two conflicting principles by the courts should be appreciated. The courts are required to articulate the choice of a principle depending on the circumstances of each case.
There is a growing appreciation of the importance of contractual relationship while promoting …show more content…

The court may remove those words which render the clause too wide; as long as the nature of the contract is retained. The doctrine of severance also known as ‘blue pencil test’ was considered by the House of Lords in Nordenfelt. The operation of the doctrine can be found in the case of Goldsoll v Goldman. The parties were engaged in selling imitation jewellery and in order to avoid competition, the defendant sold his business to the plaintiff. The restraint clause purported to restrict the defendant from engaging in businesses selling real or imitation jewellery across more than 5 countries for a period of 2 years. The restraint could only be imposed after limiting the geographical scope of the clause and exclusion of selling real jewellery. Such limitations may promote greater competition and reflect the value of free market. A restraint in particular industry will not interfere with party’s freedom in other …show more content…

This might be the effect of adapting to the capitalism and free market environment. In principle, the law provides no implied restriction and employees are completely free to compete with a former employer after termination. A restraint of trade may only be applicable, where the employer has a genuine interest to protect. This would include goodwill and confidential information. The equity law may protect the confidential information, but the goodwill must be expressly protected. The court imposed some serious limitations on the enforceability of restraint clauses. The employer’s interest should not be protected for a period that is longer than necessary and the restraint should not be imposed on a greater geographical area than necessary. The law governing the restraint of trade is likely to develop due to the implementation of flexible working practices and accessibility of information.
The current law on post-employment restrictive practices is set out in the case of Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd. v Hall. The restraint clauses should only be imposed against senior staff, who possess significant confidential information and the terms of the restraint must be supported by adequate consideration. This judgement suggests that 12 months appears to be the upper limit in duration of the restraint. The limitations are welcomed. Employees at junior position or performing normal jobs should not be

Open Document