In the Case of Peters & Co Limited V

Multiple Choice

In the case of Peters & Co Limited v. Ward it was determined that Ward, after giving notice, had downloaded his client list and taken boxes of documents from the office. The Plaintiff sued for breach of restrictive covenants and sought an Anton Piller Order. What did the Court hold?

A) The covenant was enforced, but the Anton Piller Order was not granted.
B) The covenant was enforced because it was reasonable and the Anton Piller Order was granted.
C) The covenant was void because such provisions are in restraint of trade and therefore automatically illegal.
D) The covenant was unenforceable because it was not under seal.
E) The covenant was unenforceable because such covenants demand independent legal advice prior to execution and none was obtained.