Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 864 (23 June 2022)

Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 864 (23 June 2022)

The in-term restrictive covenant (clause 21.1) is enforceable as it is reasonable and protects Credico's legitimate interest in exclusivity for the duration of the agreement, given its investment and support for MCs. The post-termination covenant is unenforceable as there is no legitimate proprietary interest (such as goodwill or confidential information) justifying restriction on competition after termination. The Undertakings independently justify injunctive relief regardless of the enforceability of the covenants.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 864
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Credico Marketing Limited; Claimant/respondent: PerDM Trading Limited; Appellant/defendant: Benjamin Gregory Lambert; Appellant/defendant: S5 Marketing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Restraint of Trade, Agency Agreements, Post Termination Restrictions, Novation, Enforceability of Covenants
Contract Law Employment Law Commercial Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Agency Agreements Post Termination Restrictions Novation +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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Credico Marketing Limited

Claimant/respondent

PerDM Trading Limited

Claimant/respondent

Benjamin Gregory Lambert

Appellant/defendant

S5 Marketing Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants in the Trading Agreement and Guarantee are enforceable or constitute unreasonable restraint of trade.
  2. 2 Whether the post-termination covenant is justified by a legitimate business interest.
  3. 3 Whether the Undertakings signed by the appellants independently justify injunctive relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The in-term restrictive covenant (clause 21.1) is enforceable as it is reasonable and protects Credico's legitimate interest in exclusivity for the duration of the agreement, given its investment and support for MCs. The post-termination covenant is unenforceable as there is no legitimate proprietary interest (such as goodwill or confidential information) justifying restriction on competition after termination. The Undertakings independently justify injunctive relief regardless of the enforceability of the covenants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the in-term restrictive covenant (clause 21.1) is enforceable.
  • Declaration that the post-termination covenant is unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade.