header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 December 2014 / Andrew Francis
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Features , Property , Competition , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Vigilance matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
francisl

Restrictive covenants & freehold land: is now the time to wake up to the challenges to validity, asks Andrew Francis

It is over three and half years since the removal of the exemption of land agreements from Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) on 6 April 2011. Given the publicity surrounding the decision in December 2013 in Martin Retail Group Ltd v Crawley Borough Council [2014] L&TR 17, [2014] 1 EGLR 42 and the decision of Mr Justice Henderson in July 2014 in Carewatch Care Services Ltd v Focus Caring Services Ltd & Ors [2014] EWHC 2313 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 163 (Jul) property lawyers with an eye on competition issues are probably thinking that enough has been said on the subject. This article attempts to show by reference to an even more recent decision that the price of security is eternal vigilance and that even after the passage of time since April 2011, there is a continuing need to assess the validity of restrictive covenants

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll