Lapthorne v Eurofi Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 993 (20 June 2001)

Lapthorne v Eurofi Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 993 (20 June 2001)

Clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of the consultancy agreement were unenforceable as unreasonable restraints of trade because they were too widely drawn and not reasonably necessary to protect the appellant's legitimate interests. The respondent did not breach fiduciary duty by providing 'services' to clients or former clients, as there was no real or sensible possibility of conflict of interest, and the appellant had consented to the respondent providing such services on his own account.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 993
Parties
Respondent/claimant: John Michael Lapthorne; Appellant/defendant: Eurofi Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Fiduciary Duty, Consultancy Agreements, Reasonableness of Restrictive Covenants
Contract Law Employment Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Fiduciary Duty Consultancy Agreements Reasonableness of Restrictive Covenants

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Michael Lapthorne

Respondent/claimant

Eurofi Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of the consultancy agreement were unenforceable as unreasonable restraints of trade
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached fiduciary duties owed to the appellant by providing services to clients or former clients
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to fees or damages for services provided by the respondent to Turnock's and Albion

Ratio Decidendi

Clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of the consultancy agreement were unenforceable as unreasonable restraints of trade because they were too widely drawn and not reasonably necessary to protect the appellant's legitimate interests. The respondent did not breach fiduciary duty by providing 'services' to clients or former clients, as there was no real or sensible possibility of conflict of interest, and the appellant had consented to the respondent providing such services on his own account.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs assessed in the sum of £8,506.65
  • Leave to appeal refused