One Money Mail Ltd v RIA Financial Services & Anor

One Money Mail Ltd v RIA Financial Services & Anor

The exclusivity and post-termination restrictions were reasonable and not in unlawful restraint of trade, as OMM had legitimate interests to protect and the provisions did not sterilise the agent's capacity to work. RIA knowingly procured breach of contract by engaging Mr Wasilewski, constituting accessory liability in tort. However, no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence of quantifiable loss or gain.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: One Money Mail Limited; First Defendant/respondent: RIA Financial Services Limited; Second Defendant: Sebastian Wasilewski (T/A Offiss)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment entered for claimant; no relief granted.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Non Compete Clauses, Inducement of Breach of Contract, Damages
Contract Law Tort Law Restraint of Trade Non Compete Clauses Inducement of Breach of Contract Damages

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

One Money Mail Limited

Claimant/appellant

RIA Financial Services Limited

First Defendant/respondent

Sebastian Wasilewski (T/A Offiss)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the exclusivity and post-termination non-compete clauses in unlawful restraint of trade?
  2. 2 Did RIA Financial Services induce breach of contract?
  3. 3 Is the claimant entitled to equitable damages in lieu of an injunction?

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusivity and post-termination restrictions were reasonable and not in unlawful restraint of trade, as OMM had legitimate interests to protect and the provisions did not sterilise the agent's capacity to work. RIA knowingly procured breach of contract by engaging Mr Wasilewski, constituting accessory liability in tort. However, no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence of quantifiable loss or gain.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment entered for claimant; no relief granted.

Orders

  • OMM Appeal allowed with respect to first ground of appeal.
  • OMM Appeal dismissed with respect to third ground of appeal.