Judge says targeted customer‑protection covenant - not a blanket non‑compete - was the appropriate safeguard.
A High Court judge has refused to enforce a six‑month non‑compete clause against a former area sales manager at Huws Gray, ruling that the builders' merchant had overreached in its attempt to stop him joining a rival. The decision, handed down in Bristol on Wednesday 17 June, is likely to resonate across the merchanting sector, where restrictive covenants are widely used to protect customer relationships.
Huws Gray, which operates more than 300 branches nationwide, sought to prevent former Area Sales Manager Daniel Gentleman from taking up a role with MKM Building Supplies' new Swindon branch. Gentleman had been responsible for customer relationships across Swindon, Newbury and Cirencester before resigning in November 2025 and joining MKM in January 2026.
The company argued that Gentleman breached a six‑month non‑compete clause by joining a direct competitor within 20 miles of his former branches. It also accused him of approaching key customers and misusing confidential information, including pricing thresholds and project data.
But by the time the case reached trial, the non‑compete was close to expiry, and Huws Gray had dropped its damages claim, seeking only final injunctions.
Judge Jonathan Russen accepted that Huws Gray had a legitimate interest in protecting its customer connections - particularly the 103 customers on Gentleman's ledger. However, he found the non‑compete clause far wider than necessary, especially given that the company had already attempted to include a customer‑specific restriction in the contract.
That clause, intended to prevent Gentleman from soliciting or dealing with defined customers, was rendered useless because the contract failed to define "Restricted Customer" or "Restricted Potential Customer". As a result, Huws Gray was forced to rely on the broader non‑compete - an approach the court rejected.
The judge emphasised that non‑solicitation and non‑dealing clauses are generally more acceptable than non‑competes, and that a properly drafted customer‑focused covenant would have provided the necessary protection.
The court was equally unimpressed with Huws Gray's argument that Gentleman must have used confidential pricing information - specifically alleged knowledge of pricing thresholds - in his new role. Gentleman said he had no need for such data, as day‑to‑day sales work depends on matching or beating competitor quotes, not knowing the company's lowest possible price.
The judge described the employer's confidential‑information case as "baseless", concluding that Gentleman's role was centred on customer relationships rather than the deployment of sensitive pricing data.
Although the non‑compete had already expired on 27 May 2026, Judge Russen recorded that he would have discharged the injunction had the judgment been delivered earlier. He also set aside the confidentiality injunction, bringing the litigation to an end.
The ruling follows Stark Building Materials' success in a separate High Court application on 9 June to enforce a non-competition against a former senior procurement executive who had joined MKM.
Both Huws Gray and MKM have been approached for comment.
