‘Despite some suspect behaviour by the Defendants, the High Court refused to grant a springboard injunction to the Claimant for breach of confidence because the balance of evidence did not support the conclusion that any advantage had been gained through misuse of confidential information.’
Blackstone Chambers, 27th November 2017
Source: www.employeecompetition.com
‘In 2014, Starham bought a piece of land on the Harrow Road. Most of the land was being used as a beer garden by the Masons Arms pub, owned by Greene King. Starham claimed this use was a trespass. Greene King claimed it was entitled to use the land as a beer garden by virtue of a right created by a conveyance dated 24 August 1855 which it said was an easement or a restrictive covenant.’
Falcon Chambers, November 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘There are few cases so iconic that lawyers remember the names long after university or law school. One is Tulk v Moxhay [1848], the case on the restrictive covenants which have prevented building on Leicester Square. The date of that case demonstrates that well-drafted restrictive covenants on land are an effective way of controlling development of land indefinitely. However, not all restrictions are worthy of preservation, so the Law of Property Act 1925 contains in section 84 a mechanism for the release of land from restrictive covenants in certain circumstances.’
Law Society's Gazette, 20th November 2017
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘The Court determined that restrictive covenants created by two conveyances dating back to 1910 continued to affect the Claimant’s property and were in principle enforceable by injunction by any or all of the Defendants against the Claimant.’
Tanfield Chambers, 12th October 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
‘The lure of profit can make the construction of a new house in the back garden a tempting prospect. Surely with the constant cry for new homes, such development should be encouraged? Unfortunately, even if planning permission can be obtained for the construction of a “starter-home” in the grounds, it is not uncommon to find a restrictive covenant registered against the title which prohibits the erection of more than one dwelling-house on the plot. “Nimby” neighbours can be all too keen to rely on such covenants to try and stop the proposed works.’
Tanfield Chambers, 12th October 2017
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Articles include:
Restrictive Covenants and Building Schemes Just Like Buses p.7
Land Registration and the Service of Notices: mind the gap p.10
Forks & Spades; Leases & Licences; Possession & Occupation p.14
Recovering Costs in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) p. 16
Newsletter (PDF)
Falcon Chambers, Winter 2017
Source: www.falcon-chambers.com
‘An 800-year-old dress code banning women from taking off their hats may finally be overturned later in Norfolk. But what other old-fashioned, or just plain strange, rules are in place around England?’
BBC News, 31st May 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
One Step (Support) Ltd v Morris-Garner and another [2016] EWCA Civ 180
‘The defendants were a former director and manager of the claimant company who were found to have breached restrictive covenants not to compete, solicit clients or use confidential information belonging to the company. Losses were difficult to quantify. The judge gave the claimants the option of recovering damages on the Wrotham Park basis, being the amount which would notionally have been agreed between the parties, acting reasonably, as the price for releasing the defendants from the restrictions.’
WLR Daily, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A property developer has brought proceedings in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) alleging that a 1997 land agreement with Tesco is in breach of competition law.’
Zenith Chambers, 23rd February 2016
Source: www.zenithchambers.co.uk
‘In granting the anti-suit injunction against EMC Corporation in Petter v (1) EMC Europe Limited (2) EMC Corporation [2015] EWCA Civ 828, the CA considered that it was upholding the policy in section 5 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 for the protection of employees from being sued other than in the courts of their domicile. But was it exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction to regulate the lawful conduct of foreigners, and interfering in the process of justice in the court of a friendly foreign state?’
Employment Law Blog, 13th August 2015
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Many large employers (particularly those who acquire other businesses over time) are faced with employees (often senior and important employees) on ‘old’ contracts with unenforceable, inappropriate or even no restrictive covenants. Quite aside from the potential difficulties posed by TUPE, remedying that problem often proves difficult in practice, and requires careful management.’
Littleton Chambers, 8th December 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Gold Harp Properties Ltd v Macleod & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 1084 is a very important Court of Appeal decision explaining the effect of rectification of the register following a mistake. The effect on the priority of interests created after the mistake but before the rectification is different from what many in the profession thought it was.’
Full story (PDF)
New Square Chambers, 28th November 2014
Source: www.newsquarechambers.co.uk
‘Mugni Islam-Choudhury reports on the latest developments on restrictive covenants following the cases of Merlin Financial Consultants Ltd v Cooper [2014] IRLR 610, QB and Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWCA Civ 1013 (CA).’
No. 5 Chambers, 18th September 2014
Source: www.no5.com
‘The Empire Strikes Back? Triumph of the Literal Interpretation of Restrictive Covenant Prophet Plc V Christopher Huggett [2014] Ewca Civ 1013 (22 July 2014)’
Littleton Chambers, 23rd July 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘In Wrotham Park v Parkside Homes [1974] 1 WLR 798, the Court declined to order a land-owner to destroy a property he had built on his land in breach of a covenant in favour of his neighbour. Instead, it awarded the neighbour damages in lieu of an injunction under Lord Cairns’ Act, in such sum “as might reasonably have been demanded by the [covenantee] … as the quid pro quo for relaxing the covenant” (815). The Court assessed the damages as a modest percentage of the profit anticipated (“with the benefit of foresight”) by the contract breaker. Employment lawyers have sought to exploit Wrotham Park for some time now, particularly following the seminal judgments of the House of Lords in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, where it was held that in exceptional circumstances (where conventional remedies had no value) the contract breacher could be required to account for the fruits of his breach of contract.’
Employment Law Blog, 15th July 2014
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Covenants restricting use of land to particular commercial purposes are commonplace. Until recently, the potential for competition law to regulate them was limited, because “land agreements” were excluded from the reach of the Chapter I Prohibition under the Competition Act 1998. The exclusion has, however, been revoked by the Competition Act 1998 (Land Agreements Exclusion Revocation Order) 2010. The OFT has also provided guidance on the application of competition law in this field.’
Competition Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 30th May 2014
Source: www.competitionbulletin.com
‘The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has just been asked to decide whether it has jurisdiction to make a determination as to whether a restrictive covenant is void and unenforceable pursuant to the “Chapter I Prohibition” under the Competition Act 1998 (“the Act”).’
Hardwicke Chambers, 5th March 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The Court of Appeal’s decision (11 October 2013) in Coppage v Safety Net Security to uphold as reasonable and enforceable a 6 month non-solicitation restrictive covenant is surprising because of the fact that the covenant covered all customers during the period of Mr Coppage’s employment. In modern times the general advice had been that such covenants should be restricted to those who had been customers in a fixed period prior to termination (‘look back’ requirement) and to be confined to those with whom the employee had had personal dealings.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 21st October 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Cosmichome Ltd v Southampton City Council [2013] EWHC 1378 (Ch); [2013] WLR (D) 207
“Section 9(2) of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964 had no application to a right of pre-emption, so long as it had not matured into an option.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024