Anstalt & Ors v Hayek & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1729 (26 November 2002)

Anstalt & Ors v Hayek & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1729 (26 November 2002)

The restriction on competition in the side letter was unreasonably wide and contrary to public policy, as it extended beyond patent protection, was not limited in time or area, and unduly restricted Dr Hayek's ability to apply his inventive skills in a field of public benefit. Therefore, the side letter was unenforceable, and no claim for inducement of breach could lie against Medivent.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1729
Parties
Claimants: Dranez Anstalt and others; Defendants: Zamir Hayek and others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal 2002/0234 allowed; Appeals 2002/0253 and 2002/0647 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Enforceability of Covenants, Estoppel, Breach of Contract, Inducement of Breach, Costs Orders
Contract Law Equity and Trusts Intellectual Property Restraint of Trade Enforceability of Covenants Estoppel Breach of Contract Inducement of Breach +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dranez Anstalt and others

Claimants

Zamir Hayek and others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint on competition in the side letter is enforceable against Dr Hayek
  2. 2 Whether additional investors (Kilroy and Dorley) can enforce the side letter
  3. 3 Whether Medivent is liable for inducing breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction on competition in the side letter was unreasonably wide and contrary to public policy, as it extended beyond patent protection, was not limited in time or area, and unduly restricted Dr Hayek's ability to apply his inventive skills in a field of public benefit. Therefore, the side letter was unenforceable, and no claim for inducement of breach could lie against Medivent.

Court Disposition

Appeal 2002/0234 allowed; Appeals 2002/0253 and 2002/0647 dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal 2002/0234 (by Dr Hayek and Medivent) allowed with costs as per order dated 26/11/02.
  • Appeals 2002/0253 and 2002/0647 dismissed.