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 which may fall foul of competition law rules.

Background

By

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
Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS
Read All
Legal notice: Notice under the Trustee Act 1925

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Emergency lawyers on call as international regulatory actions soar
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
NLJ this week: Assisted dying under the legal microscope
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll