Leeds Rugby Ltd v Harris and Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited: QBD 20 Jul 2005

The claimant sought damages from the defendants saying that the second defendant had induced a breach of contract by the first when he left to play rugby for the second defendant.
Held: The contract could not be said to be void as an agreement to agree as argued by the defendants. It was accordingly enforceable and the claim succeeded.
Gray J
[2005] EWHC 1591 (QB)
England and Wales
CitedMay and Butcher Limited v The King HL 1929
(Note) Old tentage had been sold at such prices as ‘shall be agreed from time to time’ and at such delivery periods as should be similarly agreed.
Held: There was a mere agreement to agree and no contract had ever come into existence.
CitedBrown v Gould 1972
A lease of business premises contained an option to renew the lease and provided for any such new lease: ‘to be for a further term of 21 years at a rent to be fixed having regard to the market value of the premises at the time of exercising this . .
CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
CitedHaynes v Doman CA 1899
A former servant entered into new employment carrying with him the trade secrets, with the constant risk of divulging them to rival manufacturers. The position of the expert witness was challenged.
Held: An expert witness may not give evidence . .
CitedMamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery Ad Cross CA 22-Mar-2001
The court always leans against a conclusion which will leave parties who clearly intended to contract without a legally binding contract, and that this is the more so where they have acted as though they were bound. The court strains to supply . .
CitedOffice Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas CA 1991
Reasonability Test of Post Employment Restriction
The court re-stated the principles applicable in testing whether an employee’s restrictive covenant was reasonable: ‘The court cannot say that a covenant in one form affords no more than adequate protection to a covenantee’s relevant legitimate . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 January 2021; Ref: scu.228997