Legends Live Ltd v Harrison [2016] EWHC 1938 (QB) (12 July 2016)

Legends Live Ltd v Harrison [2016] EWHC 1938 (QB) (12 July 2016)

The claimant was not acting as an employment business under the 1973 Act and 2003 Regulations because it retained predominant control over the defendant's work; thus, the statutory bar does not apply. The restraint of trade clause is enforceable as it protects the claimant's legitimate business interest in its investment in performers and reputation, and is reasonable in scope and duration given the specific market context. There was no inequitable delay or conduct by the claimant to justify refusing injunctive relief.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1938 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Legends Live Limited; Defendant: Craig Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Injunction to Enforce Employment Contract Restraint of Trade Clause / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Injunction granted enforcing the restraint of trade clause against the defendant.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Employment Agencies Act 1973, Reasonableness of Restrictive Covenants, Enforceability of Employment Clauses, Equitable Remedies
Employment Law Contract Law Restrictive Covenants Restraint of Trade Employment Agencies Act 1973 Reasonableness of Restrictive Covenants Enforceability of Employment Clauses Equitable Remedies

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legends Live Limited

Claimant

Craig Harrison

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction to Enforce Employment Contract Restraint of Trade Clause / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause is unenforceable under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003
  2. 2 Whether the claimant has a legitimate interest justifying the restraint
  3. 3 Whether the restraint is reasonable in scope and duration

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was not acting as an employment business under the 1973 Act and 2003 Regulations because it retained predominant control over the defendant's work; thus, the statutory bar does not apply. The restraint of trade clause is enforceable as it protects the claimant's legitimate business interest in its investment in performers and reputation, and is reasonable in scope and duration given the specific market context. There was no inequitable delay or conduct by the claimant to justify refusing injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted enforcing the restraint of trade clause against the defendant.

Orders

  • The defendant is restrained from performing in any multi-tribute show in Blackpool for 12 months from the end of his contract with the claimant.