Literacy Capital PLC v Vanessa Jane Webb

Literacy Capital PLC v Vanessa Jane Webb

The restrictive covenants in the Investment and Loan Note Agreements are void and unenforceable as they are excessively wide in scope, covering businesses unrelated to Mountain, and of excessive duration (8-10 years), far beyond what is permissible under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The Claimant failed to provide evidence justifying the necessity for such wide and long restrictions. There is no arguable case that the covenants are unaffected by restraint of trade law or reasonable in scope and duration.

Parties
Claimant: Literacy Capital PLC; Defendant: Vanessa Jane Webb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial/contractual Dispute / Interim Injunction Application (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Restrictive Covenants, Sale of Business, Employment Contracts, Interim Injunctions
Contract Law Employment Law Commercial Law Restraint of Trade Restrictive Covenants Sale of Business Employment Contracts Interim Injunctions

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 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Literacy Capital PLC

Claimant

Vanessa Jane Webb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/contractual Dispute / Interim Injunction Application (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictive covenants in the Investment and Loan Note Agreements are unenforceable under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade due to their scope and duration
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain the Defendant from competing

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictive covenants in the Investment and Loan Note Agreements are void and unenforceable as they are excessively wide in scope, covering businesses unrelated to Mountain, and of excessive duration (8-10 years), far beyond what is permissible under the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The Claimant failed to provide evidence justifying the necessity for such wide and long restrictions. There is no arguable case that the covenants are unaffected by restraint of trade law or reasonable in scope and duration.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction dismissed
  • Restrictive covenants declared void and unenforceable