“Wrotham Park” negotiating damages not available in majority of employment-related breach of restrictive covenant cases
In a landmark decision, Morris-Garner and another v One Step (Support) Ltd, the Supreme Court has clarified the approach to awards of damages against parties who deliberately breach contractual obligations, including restrictive covenants, but it is difficult to calculate the losses caused. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has considered “Wrotham Park damages” in future to be known as “negotiating damages”. These damages are calculated on the hypothetical amount the parties might have negotiated between themselves on an arm’s length basis, acting reasonably, for the release of the contractual obligation or restriction.
One Step – the facts
Karen Morris-Garner was a director and 50% shareholder of One Step (Support) Ltd. In 2009 she resigned her directorship and sold her shareholding for £3.15m and accepted various “non-compete” restrictions for a three year period. However, she had already secretly set up a company providing similar services to One Step in breach of the restrictions. She sold that company three years later for over £12m.
One Step argued that it would have “very real problems” proving losses relating to goodwill and slowdown in business and therefore sought damages on the basis of what the parties would have agreed for the release of the “non-compete” restrictions. The Court of Appeal found that the circumstances of the case were suitable for an award of negotiating damages, even though the High Court had not found that One Step was incapable of establishing identifiable loss.
The Supreme Court judgment
The Supreme Court held that negotiating damages in breach of contract claims should be reserved for exceptional circumstances where the breach had resulted in the loss of a valuable asset created or protected by the right infringed. In those cases the claimant’s loss can be measured by determining the economic value of the right in question. Examples of this were where the contractual right itself could be described as an asset or property such as an intellectual property agreement, a restrictive covenant over land or a confidentiality agreement. Breaches of other contractual rights that could not be considered assets, such as the breach of a non-compete obligation, may cause the claimant loss such as a loss of profits or good will from the wrongful competition, but in the absence of that loss, it would be difficult to see how there could be any other loss. Therefore, in the case of a breach of a non-competition covenant or a non-solicitation covenant the claimant would have to prove loss in the conventional way.
In One Step, whilst the company’s losses were difficult to quantify, these consisted of loss of profits and good will and could be assessed in the conventional manner. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the High Court to assess the financial loss actually sustained.
Restrictions in employment cases
In future the only circumstances in which negotiating damages are likely to be available in an employment context are where there has been a breach of confidentiality where confidential information can be regarded as a valuable asset. However, even where there has been such a breach it is likely to be compounded by other breaches. In One Step Ms Morris-Garner was in breach of the confidentiality covenant which might have come within the scope of a negotiating damages award but the Court found the claimant’s loss was the cumulative result of breaches of a number of restrictions, with non-compete and non-solicitation being the most significant. Therefore, damages would be assessed based on the loss of profit and good will suffered by the claimant.
This decision has brought much needed clarity and in future it seems unlikely we will see employers pursuing this as a remedy or courts awarding damages on this basis. This takes us back to the pre-One Step position where the assessment of damages in breach of restrictive covenant cases will be based on the loss arising as a result of the breach measured by the position the claimant would have been in had the contract been performed and the position the claimant is actually in.
In employee competition cases the focus for employers will be on seeking injunctions to prevent breaches of restrictions and establishing evidence of loss of profits and goodwill. If the employer cannot prove economic loss, then according to the Supreme Court, the implication is that they have not suffered loss and will only be entitled to nominal damages.
For more information, please contact Employment Partner Emma Bartlett.
Our thinking
IBA Annual Conference
The IBA heads to Miami for its 2022 Annual Conference bringing together thousands hundreds of lawyers from around the world.
Rose Carey
Could the UK’s Life Sciences Vision be restricted by its Immigration Policy?
We explore some of the visa options that may be open to businesses in the sector and their relative pros and cons.
Briony Richards
AI and HR - How can employers reduce the risks associated with using artificial intelligence to help manage their workforce?
If they are not mindful of the risks associated with AI, employers may find themselves in breach of employment and data protection law.
Sophie Clark
Are workers entitled to the Bank Holiday off for the Queen’s Jubilee? Don’t bank on it!
Nick Hawkins
Nick Hawkins writes for Employment Law Journal on demystifying employment contracts
Key considerations for drafting effective post- termination restrictions
Kelvin Tanner
Brexit: Implications for Immigration
Find out what you need to know about what Brexit means for you, your workers and your organisation.
Rose Carey
Is the UK open for business? A discussion with the Home Office
We hosted an immigration webinar with the policymakers from the Home Office.
Is the UK open for business? A discussion with the Home Office
Join our Immigration team for a live webinar with policymakers from the Home Office.
Rose Carey
Relocating to the UK – Post Tier 1 (Investor)
The UK government closed the Tier 1 Investor visa route with immediate effect on 17 February 2022.
Lesley O’Leary
Briefing publishes Lesley O’Leary 's comments on hybrid working and the impact on collaboration
Briefing publishes Lesley O’Leary 's comments on hybrid working and the impact on collaboration
Emily Chalkley
How to tackle a large Gender Pay Gap
Nick Hawkins
Nick Hawkins writes for Employment Law Journal on demystifying employment contracts
Nick Hawkins explains the key legal principles that govern contracts of employment.
Michael Powner
Michael Powner and Emily Chalkley write for People Management on who pays the price for vicarious liability
Michael Powner and Emily Chalkley explain whether an employer should ever be liable for wrongdoing committed by their employees.
Katherine Dennis
New Global Mobility visa route – coming Spring 2022
A new Global Business Mobility visa route is launching in the Spring of 2022.
Clare Davis
National Minimum Wage – At risk of committing a criminal offence?
To best prepare, you need to understand the nature of the risks involved and take steps to minimise them.
Rose Carey
Summary of corporate immigration changes 2022
The Home Office has announced a raft of business immigration changes which will affect employers and workers alike.
Becky Lawton
New family-friendly rights – but will they be implemented in 2022?
The government has committed to introducing several new family rights following a number of consultations over the last couple of years.
Becky Lawton
The talent gap, recruitment and retention issues
Employers continue to struggle attracting and retaining talent in a market rife with labour shortages and widely-reported pay pressures.
Paul McCarthy
New Employer and Landlord Digital ID Checks – A Good IDea?
Becky Lawton
Becky Lawton writes for Employee Benefits on whether new staff family rights come into force in 2022
The government has committed to introducing several new family rights following a number of consultations over the last couple of years.