High Court Emphasises Importance of Prompt Action When Seeking Injunctive Relief
The recent decision of Legends Live Ltd v Harrison demonstrates the importance of taking prompt and decisive action following a breach of a restrictive covenant.
Mr Harrison was a Michael Jackson tribute performer. He was contracted by Legends Live (LL) for the 2015 summer season. His contract contained a restrictive covenant preventing him from performing in another multi-tribute show in Blackpool for 12 months after the end of the season.
In January 2016, Mr Harrison entered into a contract with a competing production company (C) for the summer 2016 season. LL threatened legal proceedings when it became aware of the new contract. Crucially however, LL did not seek injunctive relief until June 2016, shortly before the summer season was due to start.
In June, LL first sought an interim injunction to prevent Mr Harrison from performing until a full trial had taken place. The application was refused, due in part to the unexplained delay in bringing the claim and also to the belief that granting an injunction at such a late stage would be prejudicial to Mr Harrison and to C.
The claim proceeded to a full trial. In his defence Mr Harrison again relied on the delay between LL's knowledge of his new contract with C and the commencement of legal proceedings.
LL attributed the delay to the cost of pursuing expensive litigation. It was accepted that between January and March 2016, LL had insufficient funds to issue proceedings. Until then it was therefore reasonable for LL to try to persuade Mr Harrison not to commit the breach. However when funding became available in March, there was a further three month delay in issuing proceedings. The Court held that this delay was unacceptable and that to grant the injunction at this late stage would cause unjust disruption to C's summer production.
Best Practice
This decision illustrates the importance of taking prompt action to enforce a restrictive covenant. This is not to say that parties should focus on litigation at the expense of alternative dispute resolution. However consideration should be given at the outset to the urgency of the matter, the length of time the parties can afford to spend negotiating prior to the issue of proceedings and how any such delay will be justified before a court, if questions are asked.