Legends Live Ltd v Harrison

Legends Live Ltd v Harrison

The restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable at common law as it protected a legitimate interest and was reasonable in the specific factual context. The claimant was not acting as an employment business under the 1973 Act and 2003 Regulations, so the statutory bar did not apply. However, the claimant's unreasonable delay in seeking an injunction rendered it inequitable to grant the relief sought, and the claim for an injunction was dismissed on discretionary grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Legends Live Limited; Defendant: Craig Harrison
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Expedited Trial
Outcome
Claim for injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Employment Contracts, Injunctions, Laches, Restrictive Covenants
Employment Law Contract Law Equity Restraint of Trade Employment Contracts Injunctions Laches Restrictive Covenants

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legends Live Limited

Claimant

Craig Harrison

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Expedited Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract is enforceable 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 restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable at common law as it protected a legitimate interest and was reasonable in the specific factual context. The claimant was not acting as an employment business under the 1973 Act and 2003 Regulations, so the statutory bar did not apply. However, the claimant's unreasonable delay in seeking an injunction rendered it inequitable to grant the relief sought, and the claim for an injunction was dismissed on discretionary grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim for injunction dismissed