Updated
Updated · buildersmerchantsjournal.net · Jun 22
High Court Backs Stark’s 9-Month Non-Compete, Rejects Huws Gray’s 6-Month Ban
Updated
Updated · buildersmerchantsjournal.net · Jun 22

High Court Backs Stark’s 9-Month Non-Compete, Rejects Huws Gray’s 6-Month Ban

1 articles · Updated · buildersmerchantsjournal.net · Jun 22

Summary

  • June rulings split two builder-merchant disputes: Stark won enforcement of a 9-month non-compete against a former procurement executive who joined MKM, while Huws Gray lost its bid to block ex-sales manager Daniel Gentleman.
  • Judge Jonathan Russen said Huws Gray’s 6-month restriction went too far because its contract did not define “Restricted Customer” or “Restricted Potential Customer,” even though the company had a legitimate interest in protecting customer ties.
  • The court indicated narrower non-solicitation or non-dealing clauses would likely have been more defensible than stopping Gentleman from joining MKM’s new Swindon branch within 20 miles of his former patch.
  • Stark succeeded because the court found its covenant reasonably necessary to protect confidential information, especially sensitive “Net Net Prices” that could benefit a competitor.
  • The paired decisions underline that UK courts will uphold non-competes when tightly drafted around clear business interests, but strike them down when broader than necessary.

Insights

Why did a nine-month non-compete succeed when a shorter six-month clause failed in the same UK sector?
As AI learns company secrets, are traditional non-compete and confidentiality agreements becoming unenforceable?