A claim was made for an injunction to enforce an express covenant in a contract of employment by a member of the Royal Household by which he undertook (amongst other things) not to publish any information concerning a member of the family which came to his knowledge during his employment.
Held: Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘It is, in my judgment, very important to notice that this is not a case such as Spycatcher (see eg A-G v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) . . [1990] 1 AC 109), where the Attorney General is relying on a duty of confidentiality. His claim is based on a breach of contract, the consideration for the covenant by Mr Barker (that he would not publish matter true or false concerning his experiences in the royal household) being the agreement by those concerned to take him on the staff of the royal household and to pay him wages or a salary. It is not in principle in any way different from the case of someone who enters into a contract with a newspaper whereby the person concerned undertakes, in consideration of a money payment, not to give their story to anyone else for publication. The newspaper in those circumstances would be likely to publish, but they would not be obliged to publish. That is an exact analogy here: the royal household would be entitled to authorise publication if they wished but equally are fully entitled under the contract to refuse to allow it. . . Exactly the same considerations would apply if the employer had been an ordinary citizen. It is a simple case of someone who has entered into a negative covenant for a consideration where the covenant is not limited territorially and is not limited in time. As Nourse LJ pointed out in argument, in such circumstances the courts habitually enforce the covenant provided only that the covenant itself cannot be attacked for obscurity, illegality or on public policy grounds such as that it is in restraint of trade.’
Judges:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR
Citations:
[1990] 3 All ER 257
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Doherty v Allman HL 2-Apr-1878
Two leases were granted of pieces of land with some buildings on them, one granted in 1798 for 999 years, the other granted in 1824 for 988 years. There was no reservation of a power of re-entry for breach of covenant, nor was there any negative . .
Cited by:
Mentioned – Araci v Fallon CA 4-Jun-2011
The claimant said that the defendant jockey had agreed to ride the claimant’s horse in the Epsom Derby (to be run on the date of the hearing), and that he should not be allowed to ride another horse. The parties had entered into a Rider Retainer . .
Cited – Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean QBD 2-Dec-2011
The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Employment
Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.440457
