The Claimant sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from commencing work with a competitor. Upon the Defendants resignation the Claimant exercised an express contractual right to place the Defendant on garden leave and held him to his 12 month notice period. After one month of garden leave the defendant claimed constructive dismissal and the employers sought and were granted an interlocutory injunction.

The issues in this case where (a) whether or not the defendant had been constructively dismissed (b) whether even if the restraints were unenforceable, the court would nevertheless have to consider whether to exercise discretion to grant an injunction in relation to the garden leave clause (c) whether or not the question of damages arises. In this case the judgement was in favour of the Claimant.

The Defendant, in this case, was a senior employee and the employer was able to show that there was a significant danger that we would take significant business to the competitor if he was allowed to leave. The High court held that the Claimant in this case had demonstrated a legitimate interest to protect their interests and those twelve months was considered the minimum period to protect their interests.

Further, they held that damages would not be an appropriate remedy in this case; however stopping the ex-employee from joining a competitor was the appropriate remedy. This was because there was a real prospect of the Claimant sustaining a substantial loss if the Defendant joined a competitor. The Defendant argued that being put on Garden leave for a period of twelve months was damaging to his professional reputation.

The court stated, ‘Garden leave clauses are common and there is general acceptance and understanding of the reasons for such garden leave being imposed, none of which reflects negatively on the affected individual.” http://bit.ly/1at0sga