‘On 23 July 2021 the Supreme Court handed down its unanimous judgment on the issues of restraint of trade and solicitors’ undertakings. This article considers the central issue before the court, namely whether a non-compete undertaking within a non-disclosure agreement was an unreasonable restraint of trade and therefore unenforceable.’
3PB, 9th August 2021
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘In its 23 July 2021 judgment, the Supreme Court tackled the severe limitations of solicitors’ undertakings in the modern era in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32. All practitioners will need to know about this vitally important unanimous judgment.’
Hailsham Chambers, 26th July 2021
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed this appeal concerning whether a non-compete clause, by which one law firm agreed with another law firm not to take part in the emissions litigation without the latter’s permission, is enforceable or not.’
UKSC Blog, 23rd July 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘A non-compete undertaking given by one law firm to another ahead of them working together was reasonable and not a restraint of trade, the Supreme Court ruled today.’
Legal Futures, 23rd July 2021
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘In this post, Sarah Day, a senior associate with CMS, previews the decision awaited from the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Limited. This case centres around a non-compete clause contained within a non-disclosure agreement between two firms of solicitors. It is an important case in the sphere of solicitors’ professional indemnity insurance as it sees the issues of (i) the Court’s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors as officers of the Court, (ii) the interaction of that jurisdiction with the restraint of trade doctrine and (ii) the interpretation and enforcement of solicitors’ undertakings, to be considered at the highest level since 1940.’
UKSC Blog, 25th May 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Andrew Butler QC assesses the recent Court of Appeal decision in Quantum Actuarial LLP v Quantum Advisory Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 227, in which he appeared for the Appellant. The case concerned covenants in restraint of trade, arising in an unusual context.’
Tanfield Chambers, 2nd March 2021
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The appeal related to a restrictive covenant given by the developer of a shopping centre in a lease that it granted to a retailer over part of the centre. In giving the covenant the developer and later Peninsula each undertook not to allow any substantial shop to be built on the rest of the centre in competition with the Dunnes. Peninsula then argued that the covenant engaged the doctrine of restraint of trade; that it was unreasonable; and that it was therefore unenforceable. The appeal to the Supreme Court concerned whether the covenant engages the doctrine.’
UKSC Blog, 19th August 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The British Olympic Association [BOA] says it has “formally responded” to a legal challenge over sponsorship rights brought by a group of its own athletes that could cast a shadow over its preparations for next year’s Tokyo Games.’
The Independent, 11th December 2019
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The High Court has dismissed a claim against a firm of solicitors, despite finding it negligent in failing to raise the absence of a covenant in restraint of competition during the purchase of a commercial property.’
Legal Futures, 13th July 2015
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
“As usual, the current crop of recent decisions in this area contain a real mix of the orthodox and the heterodox approach to the doctrine of restraint of trade, frequently within the same case. A good illustration of this is the case of Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Paula Huesca De Crean [2012] EWCA Civ 156 which will be extensively covered in the talk to be delivered by Simon Forshaw on Confidential Information. I confine myself to observing that the ‘barring out’ injunction sought on the
basis of supposed fiduciary obligations was a restraint on working on a particular contract for a customer and not for a competitor.”
Full story (PDF)
11 KBW, 1st June 2012
Source: www.11kbw.com
“Wayne Rooney today defeated attempts to sue him for £4.3 million. The Manchester United and England striker was accused of withholding commission on multi-million pound deals brokered by sports management firm Proactive, who used to represent him.”
The Independent, 15th July 2010
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Sprinter unsuccessful in bid to compete in Beijing Games.”
The Guardian, 18th July 2008
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Court takes realist view of corporate personality
Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd v Hall
Court of Appeal
“In construing a covenant in restraint of trade between a holding company and its employees, who provided services through subsidiary companies within a corporate group, the Court of Appeal rejected a purist approach to corporate personality in favour of one which had regard to the realities of big business, taking the group as being one concern under one supreme control.”
The Times, 11th July 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication
Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd. and others v. Hall and others [2007] EWCA Civ 613
“In construing a covenant in restraint of trade between a holding company and its employees who provided services through subsidiary companies within a corporate group, the Court of Appeal rejected a ‘purist’ approach to corporate personality in favour of one which had regard to the realities of big business.”
WLR Daily, 28th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024