High Court dismisses proceedings seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant preventing defendant from taking up a position at a competitor within 12 months, finding that, while the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving that it had a legitimate interest in protecting the information that would come to the defendant’s knowledge in the course of his employment, the restraint on trade was too wide and was therefore unjustified and unenforceable, as: (a) the covenant, properly construed, would prevent the defendant from taking up employment with any European airline, not just low-fare airlines; and (b) the covenant did not simply limit the defendant from taking up roles that would risk the disclosure of protected information.
Proceedings brought by airline seeking to enforce compliance with restrictive employment covenant - clause that defendant would not go to work for a competitor within 12 months of termination of his employment with the plaintiff - defendant was chief operations officer with the plaintiff - negative performance review and decision not to award certain share options, ahead of defendant's resignation - whether the covenant was binding - whether restraint of trade was excessive - whether circumstances in which defendant's employment came to an end were such that the court ought to exercise its discretion not to enforce the covenant.