We have adopted a specialist team approach to our practices for many years. We feel that this is the way our clients want us to work, and that specialisation leads to the provision of a better service.
Insights
27/03/2025
On 12 March 2025, the High Court handed down judgment in Kau Media Group Ltd v Hart. The court rejected a claim brought by a digital marketing agency. The agency had sought to enforce restrictive covenants in a former employee’s contract of employment. The employee in question, Mr Hart, served as an account director. Subsequently, a former client of the claimant hired him to work in-house. The claimant argued this breached the non-complete, non-solicitation and non-dealing obligations Mr Hart was under.
The judgment contains salutary lessons for those seeking to enforce restrictive covenants. It highlights the need to properly particularise the ‘legitimate business interests’ they seek to enforce. In his judgment, Jeremy Hyam KC (sitting as a High Court judge) was highly critical of the claimant’s approach. He also criticised the failure to identify both the customers allegedly connected and the specific confidential information requiring protection.
The shortcomings in the claimant’s pleadings were, however, the least of the claimant’s problems. Accepting James’ submissions, the Court found that the claimant could not establish: (1) the restrictive covenants were engaged by the move ‘in-house’, (2) a legitimate interest in need of protection, or (3) the reasonableness of the covenants vis the specifics of the industry.
Jared Ursell of Acuity Law instructed James Wibberley in the case.
To view the full judgement please follow the link here
To view James’ profile, please click here

Sign up
To be kept up-to-date with our latest news and future events, please complete the short form.
A member of the clerking team will help you resolve your request.