Denise leased a car from Crown Cars. The terms of the arrangement provided that she would retain the car for a year paying 50 per week for the use of the vehicle. While she paid the weekly rental for the period of the lease, at the end of the year, Denise retained the car for a further six months without paying any rent despite repeated demands from Crown Cars for its return. Denise had been using the car as a taxi (a use that was not prohibited under the hire arrangement). She made a good deal of money over the course of the six months that she wrongfully retained the car, depositing most of it in a savings account in her name. Despite her careful budgetary management, Denise risks going bankrupt as a result of her husband Harry's reckless spending that has left their joint bank account gravely overdrawn. Crown had employed Ryan as deputy manager for 3 years until he resigned in May of last year. Recently, the management of Crown discovered that Ryan set up a rival car leasing business in the area 12 months ago, which he managed under an alias and while wearing a disguise. This was clearly in breach of an enforceable restraint of trade clause in his contract that prohibited him from working within the local area within a year after resigning from the firm. What relief, if any, should Crown be able to claim against Denise and Ryan for the benefits they have obtained from their breaches?

Your answer should discuss and evaluate the current state of the law in this area.