Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Employment Law

Legal guidance - compliance - software

10 SEP 2015

Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013; (2014) EMPLR 061

Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013; (2014) EMPLR 061
22 July 2014

Court of Appeal, Civil Division

Rimer, Lewison and Christopher Clarke LJJ

Courts can only correct obvious drafting mistakes to make restrictive covenants effective if the drafting is ambiguous. For example, if a contractual provision could have one absurd meaning and one commercially sensible meaning, a court may choose the commercially sensible meaning. But if the clause is unambiguous, the court will not rewrite the clause to avoid a meaningless result.

H’s contract prevented him, for twelve months after his employment ended, from working for a competitor if he was engaged ‘in connection with any products in or on which he/she was involved whilst employed …’ No competitors would provide systems with which H had been involved since he had only dealt with Prophet’s own products: but clearly the clause was meant to prevent his involvement in providing systems similar to those produced by Prophet. The High Court was prepared to add words to that effect to make the restrictive covenant achieve its purpose.

The Court of Appeal, however, held that the clause was unambiguous and only covered Prophet’s own products and not competing products. Prophet was therefore stuck with a ‘toothless restriction’.

The court therefore refused the injunction.

Law of Termination of Employment, The

Law of Termination of Employment, The

Authoritative analysis of the rules governing termination of employment provides coverage of the...

Jordan Publishing Employment Law

Jordan Publishing Employment Law

"exceptional value for money in today's challenging legal environment" John Mitton, PG Legal

Available in Lexis®Library