Chester 01244 405555

Grosvenor Court
Foregate Street Chester
Cheshire CH1 1HG
DX: 19990 Chester

Shrewsbury 01743 443 043

Lakeside House
Oxon Business Park
Shrewsbury SY3 5HJ
DX: 148563 Shrewsbury 14

Manchester 0844 800 8346

Pall Mall Court
61-67 King Street
Manchester M2 4PD

Send us a message
Our Offices

Jockey’s Attempt to Breach Covenant Falls at Second Fence

22nd December, 2011

A covenant can either represent a commitment to do something or a commitment not to do something. In either case, the party faced with a breach of the covenant has a range of options available to them for obtaining a legal remedy, one of which is to obtain a court injunction to prevent the breach.

In a recent case, a jockey who had an agreement with a racehorse owner that he would not agree to ride another owner’s horse in a race in which he had already been booked to ride one of the owner’s horses was faced with an injunction to prevent a breach of contract.

The jockey was booked to ride one of the owner’s horses in the Derby. Five days before the race, however, he sent a text message to the owner indicating that he would not after all be riding the horse in that race. He had in fact agreed to ride another horse. The owner sought an injunction to prevent him breaking the restrictive covenant.

The lower court refused to prevent the jockey from riding the horse of his choice, despite the fact that it left the owner seeking a replacement jockey at the last minute. The decision was made largely on public interest grounds, the judge believing that damages would be sufficient compensation for the racehorse owner. The owner appealed and the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and granted the injunction. Because of the clear breach of the covenant, it was necessary in law for the jockey to prove that special circumstances existed to justify not enforcing the covenant. The Court concluded that in this case there were no special circumstances that would justify the withholding of the requested injunction.

The circumstances in this case were clearly unusual. It involved a well-known sportsman and one of the classic Flat races. However, it clearly demonstrates the principle that the use of a well-worded restraint of trade clause and its timely application can be an effective protection.

As it happens, neither horse won!

For advice on all contractual matters, contact Nick Clarke in the Commercial Team.

 

You might also be interested in...

Why there is more to CSR than just boosting a company’s ego

6th July, 2018

When a business invests in its community it deserves praise – but it must go beyond that, writes Helen Watson, a trustee at Claire House and partner at Aaron and Partners Solicitors. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the link between a company and the community in which it operates. As a trustee on charity boards including Claire House... Read More »

Stuart Haynes reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden 14th to 17th June 2018

4th July, 2018

Stuart Haynes, Corporate & Commercial Partner and IAG Global Board Member, reports on IAG Global – Wiesbaden held 14th to 17th June 2018 Stuart Haynes (IAG Global Board Member) Stuart Scott-Goldstone and Nick Clarke attended the recent IAG Global meeting in Wiesbaden which was held at the Grand Hotel Nassauer Hof from 14th – and 17th July 2018 The meeting... Read More »

DNA Test ordered in inheritance dispute where paternity questioned

6th June, 2018

Rhiannon Edwards, Solicitor in the Wills, Trusts and Tax department, discusses the recent judgement in the case of Nield-Moir v Freeman, where the High Court has ordered one of two daughters of Colin Birtles, who has died, to take a DNA test to prove paternity as part of an inheritance dispute In an unusual case, the High Court... Read More »

Contact Us