Before Farwell J, the issues were: {i)whether Mr Horne had been released from the covenant upon the termination of his employment, a case that the judge rejected; and (ii) where the covenant was unenforceable as being in restraint of trade, which the judge held it was. The result was that he dismissed the action, although had the covenant been enforceable, prima facie it would have been enforceable only against Mr Ali, the contracting party. Far~treit J explaiTied, iiosvever, ~t page 937, that the case against the company 'vas that it was "merely the creature of [Ivir HomeJ, and [lie] is Cornmitting.~~aches of the covefiant by the agency of [the aomgarzy~". He fauxid, at page 943, that the coreparty was "a company which . , . is obviously carried ~on wholly by [Mr ~Iorne]" and t~lat it was "the cTa~nnel through which [hey was carrying on leis business". He ~lst~ said, at page 944, that the plai3z~iff's clai~n.~~as w1~olly dependant on the covei3ants in the service agreement and that "u~iless tt~e plaintiff can succeed o~7 the agreement i~self, this action cannot succeed ~t aII