- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
TFS Derivatives Led v Morgan
Factual and Procedural Background
This case concerns an action brought by Company A, a derivatives broking firm, seeking injunctive relief to enforce post-termination restrictive covenants contained in the employment contract of their former employee, Defendant, who worked as an equity derivatives broker. Company A obtained an ex parte injunction preventing Defendant from breaching the covenants on 6 September 2004. Both parties consented to a speedy trial of liability issues, with Defendant giving undertakings to abide by the covenants until trial. Defendant’s employment ended on 7 September 2004, with salary paid until that date. The main restriction sought was to prevent Defendant from competing in his former market until 22 December 2004.
The trial commenced on 9 November 2004 and lasted three days. Evidence was given by representatives of Company A and Defendant, including Defendant himself, and witnesses from a competitor company, Company B, where Defendant intended to work after his contractual restrictions expired. The parties submitted written and oral arguments. Judgment was reserved but given orally on 15 November 2004 due to urgency.
Defendant initially argued repudiatory breach by Company A due to garden leave and loss of bonuses, but abandoned this and defended only on the basis that the restrictive covenants were an unlawful restraint of trade. The court was tasked with determining the enforceability and reasonableness of clause 12 of Defendant’s employment contract, particularly clause 12.1(a).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether clause 12.1(a) of Defendant’s contract is void as an unlawful restraint of trade.
- The proper construction and scope of clause 12.1(a) concerning the restriction on Defendant’s post-termination activities.
- Whether the restrictive covenants protect legitimate business interests of Company A.
- Whether the covenants are no wider than reasonably necessary to protect those interests.
- Whether injunctive relief should be granted to enforce the restrictive covenants.
- The appropriateness of severing the phrase "or similar to" from the restrictive covenants.
- The relationship and comparative reasonableness of garden leave clauses versus non-compete clauses in this context.
Arguments of the Parties
Company A's Arguments
- The restrictive covenants are reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests including client connections, confidential information, and workforce stability.
- The phrase "or similar to" in clause 12.1(a) is unreasonably wide and should be severed, but the remainder of the clause is enforceable.
- The covenant restricts Defendant only from engaging in the particular business activity in which he was involved, not from working for a competitor business entity in any capacity.
- Non-solicitation clauses are difficult to police; thus, non-compete clauses provide stronger protection.
- Injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent Defendant from competing in the equity derivatives market for six months post-termination.
Defendant's Arguments
- Initially argued repudiatory breach by Company A due to garden leave and denial of bonuses, but abandoned this argument at trial.
- Contended that clause 12.1(a) is an unreasonable restraint of trade because it prohibits employment "in any capacity" in any competitive business, effectively barring Defendant from working for Company B in any role.
- Submitted that a garden leave clause providing six months’ notice with enforced leave would be a more reasonable and flexible restriction than the non-compete clause.
- Argued that employers should pay for restrictions on future employability and that non-compete clauses should be viewed with suspicion in favour of garden leave clauses.
- Claimed the restrictive covenants were too wide in duration and scope, particularly clauses 12.1(b) and (c), and that definitions such as "employee" were overly broad.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Office Angels Limited v Rainer Thomas & O'Connor [1991] IRLR 214 | Principles governing enforceability of covenants in restraint of trade, including reasonableness in interests of parties and public. | Used as the foundational legal framework for assessing the validity of clause 12.1(a). |
| Herbert Morris Ltd v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 | Distinction between covenants protecting goodwill and those preventing competition by former employees; reasonableness standard. | Referenced to support the requirement that restrictive covenants protect legitimate business interests and be reasonable. |
| Kores Manufacturing Co Ltd v Kolok Manufacturing Ltd [1959] Ch 109 | Distinction between vendor-purchaser covenants and master-servant covenants in restraint of trade. | Clarified the context of covenants between employer and employee. |
| Stenhouse Ltd v Phillips [1974] AC 391 | Employer’s protection must be based on assets or advantages inherent in the business that should not be appropriated by the employee. | Used to identify legitimate business interests warranting protection. |
| Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724 | Restrictions must be no greater than reasonably necessary to protect employer’s interests. | Applied as part of the reasonableness test for restrictive covenants. |
| Arbuthnot Fund Managers v Rawlings [2003] EWCA Civ 518 | Principles of contract construction applied to post-termination restraints on employment. | Guided the court’s approach to construing clause 12.1(a) in the factual matrix. |
| Home Counties Dairies Ltd v Skilton [1970] 1 WLR 526 | Contextual construction of restrictive covenants with reference to the object sought. | Supported the court’s contextual approach to interpreting clause 12.1(a). |
| Haynes v Doman [1899] 2 Ch 13 | Restrictive covenants must be construed with reference to their purpose and real scope. | Used to emphasize that the clause should not be construed to cover activities not contemplated by the parties. |
| J A Mont (UK) Ltd v Mills [1993] IRLR 172 | Court should not artificially limit restrictive covenants but must take their natural meaning. | Supported the court’s refusal to artificially limit clause 12.1(a) beyond its natural meaning. |
| Turner & Others v Commonwealth & British Minerals Limited [2000] IRLR 114 | Where ambiguity exists, prefer a construction that renders the covenant enforceable if reasonable. | Guided the court to adopt the narrower, enforceable construction of clause 12.1(a). |
| Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571 | Severance of unenforceable parts of covenants permissible if clauses are separable. | Supported severance of the phrase "or similar to" from clause 12.1(a). |
| Sadler v Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada Ltd [1988] IRLR 388 | Conditions for severing unenforceable provisions without altering contract character. | Applied to justify severance of "or similar to" without modifying remaining terms. |
| Marshall v NM Financial Management Limited [1996] IRLR 20 | Added public policy consistency as a condition for severance. | Confirmed severance was consistent with public policy here. |
| Littlewoods Organisation v Harris [1977] 1 WLR 1472 | Employers may protect confidential information by restricting employee’s field of activity post-termination. | Supported reasonableness of non-compete clauses to protect trade secrets and client connections. |
| Printers & Finishers Ltd v Holloway [1965] 1 WLR 1 | Non-compete clauses protect trade secrets carried in employee’s head. | Used to justify the non-compete clause as a practical protection for confidential information. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed three-stage analysis to determine whether clause 12.1(a) was enforceable as a post-termination restraint of trade. First, the court construed the clause in light of the factual matrix, including the nature of Defendant’s role as an equity derivatives broker specializing in the DAX market and the structure of Company A’s business activities. The court concluded that "business" in clause 12.1(a) referred to a particular business activity (e.g., broking on the DAX desk) rather than a broader business entity. This narrower construction was supported by definitions within the contract and the parties’ conduct, including correspondence and the handling of a similar case involving another employee.
Second, the court accepted that Company A had legitimate business interests to protect, specifically client connections, confidential information (including brokerage rates and client trading data), and workforce stability. The evidence showed Defendant had developed valuable client relationships and access to sensitive information during employment.
Third, the court assessed whether the covenants were no wider than reasonably necessary. It found the restriction in clause 12.1(a), with the exception of the words "or similar to," was reasonable in duration (six months) and scope, protecting Company A’s interests without unduly restricting Defendant’s employment prospects. The phrase "or similar to" was severed as unreasonably wide and unsupported by evidence.
The court rejected Defendant’s submission that a garden leave clause would be a more reasonable alternative, noting that a six-month enforced garden leave would be more onerous and potentially detrimental to Defendant’s skills and was not universally appropriate. The court also emphasized the high remuneration and bargaining power of Defendant, reducing concerns over inequality in the contractual terms.
Regarding clauses 12.1(b) and (c), the court upheld their reasonableness in protecting workforce stability but declined to grant injunctive relief due to lack of evidence of breach or threat of breach by Defendant.
Holding and Implications
The court UPHELD clause 12.1(a) of Defendant’s contract as enforceable, but SEVERED the words "or similar to" from the clause for being unreasonably wide. The court granted injunctive relief preventing Defendant from engaging in business activities competitive with Company A’s Relevant Business for six months post-termination, specifically restricting Defendant’s work on the DAX desk at Company B until 22 December 2004.
The court declined to grant injunctive relief under clauses 12.1(b) and (c) due to lack of evidence of breach.
The decision directly affects the parties by enforcing the post-termination non-compete restrictions in a narrowed form, allowing Defendant to work in other business activities immediately but restricting competitive work in the equity derivatives market for six months. No broader precedent was established beyond applying established principles of restraint of trade and contract construction to the specific facts of this case.
Alert