We have a further example of how courts can interpret simple words like “use” and “a” in conflicting ways.

In the recent case of Parsons v Thatchers Wood Residential Company Ltd, the claimant (P) claimed a declaration as to the meaning of a restrictive covenant in the title deeds to their property, which was situated on a small residential estate. The defendant (T) was the management company for the estate; it owned and looked after the common parts of the estate and was a beneficiary of the restrictive covenant.

T’s articles of association provided that (1) each house-owner on the estate was issued a share in T, and that (2) shares could only be issued to home owners on the estate, who had to transfer their share when they sold their house. The articles were later amended to allow shares to be issued to purchasers of new houses added to the estate. The covenant was entitled “User” and provided that, unless T’s permission was given, the property was not to be used for any purpose other than “as a private dwelling-house in single family occupation”.

The issue was whether the “User” restrictive covenant prevented P from building a second house on their property without T’s permission.

In the absence of a contrary indication, the words of a heading could be taken into account. In this case, some guidance on the meaning could be gained from the heading, which indicated that the covenant was about the permitted and non-permitted “User” of the property. The subject matter was the whole of the property. There was no need for numbers to be used to limit the number of dwelling-houses, and use of the indefinite article, “a”, was not necessarily determinative. Two aspects of the covenant connoted that it was intended to limit numbers: the wording suggested that the draftsman had in mind that density was a purpose, and the covenant was applicable to the whole property.

The Court considered the 2004 ruling in Martin v David Wilson Homes Ltd. This case stated that the words “use as a private dwelling house” meant that the word “use” was definitive, not the word “a”. Therefore, more than one house could be built.

However, the High Court determined in Parsons v Thatchers Wood Residential Company that the context of the restriction on use was materially different to that in Martin v David Wilson Homes. The covenant prevented the building of a second house on the property, without T’s consent. That conclusion was supported by T’s articles of association which, in unamended form, appeared to provide that only purchasers of the houses originally built could be issued shares.

All cases are judged on their own particular facts and it is difficult to draw conclusions from this case alone. However, this case adds uncertainty to the interpretation of restrictive covenants, and developers and landowners need to consider the effect of covenants carefully before committing to a development.

What conclusions can you draw from cases such as this?  Simply do not assume that your understanding of the “law” is correct.  It might have changed.  Please check with us.

When a buyer purchases a business, it usually wishes to ensure that the seller cannot compete with the business of the target post-sale. We therefore recommend that restrictive covenants are included in any sale and purchase agreement.

Facts of the case

In this case the restrictive covenants in the sale and purchase agreement included a non-solicitation clause which prohibited the defendant from soliciting, canvassing or enticing away the customers of the target business for three years following completion. Before that three year period ended, the claimant noticed that some of its clients were moving to the firm where the defendant now worked. Clients had never moved to that firm before and the claimant issued proceedings for breach of restrictive covenant by the defendant.

Decision

The High Court ruled that the restrictive covenant had been breached due to the defendant’s actions and intentions on the following ground that the evidence showed that:

- there was a secret intention between the defendant and his new employer of an intention to acquire the claimant’s client base and a clear intention of the defendant to solicit the claimant’s clients for his new employer; and

- there were a number of clear actions by the defendant which solicited the clients for his new employer, including calling and meeting clients and encouraging them to follow his move.

The High Court considered that no client could have been guaranteed to stay with the claimant firm for more than one year but ruled that damages should be payable to reflect that one year’s revenue, such that the defendant was liable to pay damages of £31,875.

Comment

This case shows the importance of putting restrictive covenants into a sale and purchase agreement. Restrictive covenants must be very carefully drafted so as to be reasonable when considering their length, geographical effect and scope, and are interpreted on a case-by-case basis by the court, but this case highlights that time spent drafting such provisions can be time well spent.

Baldwins (Ashby) Ltd v Maidstone

The High Court found that SR had breached the clause requiring him not to solicit TR’s customers, and this was shown by him having taken his Outlook contact list. This justified an injunction. However, the fact that he had set up in business within five miles should not be held against him as that clause was too wide to be enforceable. Although five miles was a reasonable distance given the nature of the business, most of SR’s work for TR had not involved recurring business and was therefore not capable of creating a customer connection worth protecting. The restriction on him from setting up in business within five miles was therefore unreasonably wide in the circumstances and so it was unenforceable. TR was already well protected by the other two restrictions.

The franchise agreement contained three different provisions in separate sub-clauses: the non-solicitation clause prohibited soliciting clients and staff for one year in respect of the Restricted Area; the non-supply clause prohibited supply of competing goods for one year in respect of the Restricted Area; and the non-compete clause prohibited engaging in a competing business in respect of the Restricted Area. The “Restricted Area” was defined only in the non-compete clause, by reference to the franchise territory but also some other surrounding areas. The agreement also contained a severability clause, which is often used to encourage a judge to treat each provision separately and remove any offending words.

The parties fell into dispute. They did agree that the non-solicitation clause was valid in all of the Restricted Area. However, the non-compete clause would be invalid if it extended to the whole of the Restricted Area as it was too wide. The High Court therefore had to rule on the ability to sever any offending words.

The High Court ruled that it would not sever the Restricted Area in order to save the unenforceable non-compete clause. If the Court would have reduced the wording so that the definition referred just to the original territory, this would have changed the meaning of the defined term in the other sub-clauses (the non-solicitation clause and non-supply clause), which did not need changing in order to make them enforceable. Therefore it was not possible to sever.

Paul Gershlick, a Partner at Matthew Arnold & Baldwin LLP and editor of Upload-IT, comments: “This case shows the danger of using the same defined term, and particularly defining the term itself, within particular sub-clauses if the intention by drafting separate sub-clauses is that offending unenforceable sub-clauses may be severed with the rest left intact.”

You can read the full article here: http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1018762/employees-duties-importance-loss-litigation

“The employee undertakes that he will not, in any capacity (without the previous consent in writing of the employer) for a period of 12 months immediately after the termination date, in any capacity for a competitor, negotiate or, solicit business from, or endeavour to entice away from the employer a customer, or a potential customer.”

The contract also contained a six-month post-termination “non-dealing” clause and provided that the duration of both clauses should be reduced by any period spent on garden leave.

Even though the company that the employee went to was in direct competition with the company, the application for an injunction preventing the ex-employee from soliciting customers and potential customers for 12 months (less the time the ex-employee had spent on garden leave) was refused, mainly because it was found that the ex-employee was not particularly senior to warrant such a restriction. However, it was found that, as there were legitimate interests to protect, a non-solicitation clause was justified.

The judgment also concluded that even if a more reasonable shorter restriction had been in place, the fact that there is no definition of customers or potential customers meant that the clause was too widely drafted in any event.

Lessons should be drawn from this, to ensure the durations of restrictions are no wider than reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the company’s interests, and that such restrictions contain appropriate definitions within the clause. Reasonable necessity is to be assessed from the perspective of reasonable persons in the position of the parties as at the date of the contract, having regard to the contractual provisions as a whole and to the factual matrix to which the contract would then realistically have been expected to apply.

The High Court sided with P. The level of know-how and assistance provided by P to its franchisees totally justified the restrictive covenants. The restrictive covenants were no more than necessary to protect P’s business. Those provisions were therefore not void at common law or contrary to competition law as they were essential to maintain P’s goodwill. The injunction was justified and the other side’s claim for damages was dismissed.