Credico Marketing Limited & Anor. v Benjamin Gregory Lambert & Anor.

Credico Marketing Limited & Anor. v Benjamin Gregory Lambert & Anor.

Clause 21.1, restricting activities during the Trading Agreement, is valid and enforceable as it protects Credico's legitimate business interests in providing campaigns and support to MCs. Clause 21.2, the post-termination covenant, is invalid as Credico lacks a proprietary interest, goodwill, or confidential information justifying restriction after termination.

Parties
Claimant: Credico Marketing Limited; Claimant: PerDM Trading Limited; Respondent: Benjamin Gregory Lambert; Respondent: S5 Marketing Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; clause 21.1 upheld, clause 21.2 invalidated.
Legal Topics
Restrictive Covenants, Enforceability of Restraint Clauses, Agency Agreements, Post Termination Restrictions
Contract Law Restraint of Trade Restrictive Covenants Enforceability of Restraint Clauses Agency Agreements Post Termination Restrictions

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Credico Marketing Limited

Claimant

PerDM Trading Limited

Claimant

Benjamin Gregory Lambert

Respondent

S5 Marketing Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the restrictive covenants in clause 21 of the Trading Agreement enforceable or in unreasonable restraint of trade?
  2. 2 Is the post-termination covenant in clause 21.2 valid and enforceable?
  3. 3 Does Credico have a legitimate interest justifying the imposition of the covenants?

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 21.1, restricting activities during the Trading Agreement, is valid and enforceable as it protects Credico's legitimate business interests in providing campaigns and support to MCs. Clause 21.2, the post-termination covenant, is invalid as Credico lacks a proprietary interest, goodwill, or confidential information justifying restriction after termination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; clause 21.1 upheld, clause 21.2 invalidated.

Orders

  • Declaration that clause 21.1 is valid and enforceable.
  • Declaration that clause 21.2 is invalid and unenforceable.