UK: Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters

Last Updated: 29 January 2007
Article by Edward Brown
In the recent decision in Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters, Etherton J, sitting in the Chancery division, set out a broad new approach to the permissibility of employees taking "preparatory steps" to set up in competition with their employer.

The facts

The defendants in the case were all former directors or senior employees of Shepherds, an investment fund that traded in individual life insurance policies. It made its profit by judging which policies would accrue earliest (by reason of the beneficiary deceasing) and assessing their corresponding value.

As is normal at such a company, Shepherds relied primarily upon the skills and experience of its traders. As is also the custom, Shepherds sought to secure its employees’ loyalty with high salaries and appropriately worded restrictions in their contracts of employment.

Two of the three defendants owed fiduciary duties as directors, irrespective of the terms of their contracts of employment. In respect of the single defendant who was not formally a director, the judge noted that in appropriate circumstances, a senior employee could owe fiduciary duties (Nottingham University v Fishel). However, the judge had little difficulty in finding that this defendant owed equivalent fiduciary duties, having held himself out as a director in fact (Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd).

Against this background, the defendants, while still in employment and without authorisation from Shepherds, began discussing the creation of a new investment fund to compete in the traded life policy market. The new team distinguished itself from Shepherds by intending to focus upon a slightly different section of the market (the "whole", rather than the "fractionalised" life policy market). These discussions resulted in a draft business plan, emphasising the new team’s experience and including significant improvements that, in their view, could be made to the "Shepherds model". The defendants also developed possible links with banks and auditors for the future transactions and prepared financial predictions for the first few years of trading. In short, much of the groundwork for the future business was in place by the time some (but not all) of the defendants came to resign formally from Shepherds.

Following the resignations of two of the three defendants, the new fund was formally incorporated, and various banking and auditing formalities concluded. Promotional literature was ordered and shortly thereafter the first transactions took place. Soon after that, Shepherds itself decided to move into the whole life policy market and began trading. Upon discovering the extent of the new team’s activities, Shepherds brought claims against its former employees for breach of fiduciary duty, and in contract for breach of express contractual terms and the implied term of fidelity.

"Preparatory steps" to compete

In his decision, Etherton J came down firmly on the side of the company, finding the defendants to have breached both their fiduciary and contractual duties. He held that the steps taken crossed the line between legitimate entrepreneurial activities and illegitimate competition. The significance of the decision lies in the judge’s assessment as to where that line should properly be drawn.

The previous authorities

Previously, the courts had permitted preliminary steps that fell short of actual competitive activities. Accordingly, in a line of cases beginning with Balston v Headline Filters, judicial policy protected fiduciaries who began setting up a competitor company while still in employment, providing it only began trading post-employment (and post-expiration of any reasonable and necessary restrictive covenants).

Identification of premises and the negotiation of a lease; the purchase of an off-the-shelf company; and tendering for contracts all constituted permissible steps. Such a dividing line was upheld in the subsequent decisions of Framlington Group v Anderson and Coleman v Oakes, in which Balston was cited and approved.

However, the Balston approach sat uneasily with subsequent decisions regarding the obligation of a fiduciary to report his own competitive activities to his employer. In British Midland Tool Ltd v Midland International Tooling Ltd, Hart J considered it a "simple proposition" that a director should report any "nascent commercial threat" to the company, particularly where he was personally involved.

The judge considered this duty to arise both from his position as a fiduciary, and by reason of the implied term of fidelity (see Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 350).

In Item Software (UK) Ltd v Fassihi, the Court of Appeal held that it was incumbent upon a fiduciary to disclose his own participation in the setting up of a rival company as such activities did not constitute legitimate entrepreneurial activities.

The new approach

Etherton J’s decision casts significant doubt on the correctness of the Balston line of authorities. He held that where a conflict arose between the duty of the director to his company and the policy concern of restraint of trade, there could be no suggestion that the policy "trumped" the director’s duty. Insofar as there was any conflict between Balston and British Midland Tools, the judge held that the British Midland Tools approach was to be preferred (paragraph 105).

The judge further held that whether any particular act was permissible depended on the facts of the case. Although discussing an idea with friends and family would be fine, poaching of customers clearly crossed the line. Acts between these two ends of the spectrum were a matter for determination by the judge in the case. The crux was whether an irrevocable intention had been formed by the performance of a particular act.

Significantly, Etherton J also held that the same acts constituted a breach of the implied term of fidelity (paragraph 129). This finding therefore holds mere employees and fiduciaries to the same standard in respect of any preparatory acts. In most instances, it will be of little relief to a mere employee that the employer’s remedies would be limited to damages and not an account of profits in such circumstances.

Permissible acts post-Shepherds

Etherton J’s analysis and findings of fact suggest that the scope of permissible acts is remarkably limited. Although he expressly considered it permissible to formulate an intention to leave employment at some point in the future and to discuss potential projects with family and friends, the judge left virtually any further act liable to cross the line. In particular, the following acts can no longer be considered safe in light of the decision:

  • identifying suitable premises for the new business, and negotiating a lease and signing it (Balston v Headline Filters);
  • purchasing an off-the-shelf company (Balston v Headline Filters);
  • negotiating and agreeing terms of employment with a competing business (Framlington Group v Anderson)
  • encouraging (or even failing to act to thwart) the recruitment of employees by a competitor (British Midland Tool Ltd v Midland International Tooling Ltd)
  • preparing a company for incorporation (Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters)
  • contacting investment banks for support several months prior to the commencement of trading (Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters)
  • contacting lawyers with details of the proposals (Shepherds Investments Ltd v Walters).

Inevitably, the weight given to any one act will be a question of fact and degree, depending on the circumstances of the case. The focus of the court’s attention will be on the extent to which any one act constitutes evidence of a settled intention. Clearly, the existence of several acts will strengthen the case against an alleged wrongdoer. However, no guidance was given in Shepherds as to whether any acts might have the status of aggravating factors and this may fall to be decided by future courts.

The specific problem facing legal advisers

The comments made in Shepherds in relation to contact with lawyers are significant. In particular, lawyers should be aware that their own legal advice may, unwittingly, cause a client to cross the line. Further, it may not be safe for lawyers to assume that any such contact would be covered by legal professional privilege.

Although the judge did not expand beyond the general comment that consulting lawyers may cross the line, a distinction can be drawn between two broad situations:

  • first, if a client approaches his or her solicitors seeking advice about the legal implications of a proposed course of conduct, such a step cannot have been intended to constitute a breach of duty. It is clearly in the public interest that individuals are able to establish the extent of their legal obligations and the implications of any wrongdoing; nothing in Shepherds should be taken as suggesting otherwise. As such, any advice given by solicitors in this respect would be covered by LPP
  • secondly, if a client approaches his or her solicitors seeking assistance in relation to the implementation of a proposal, he or she may, at that stage, have crossed the line. Legal teams are placed in an invidious position when contacted out of the blue by a client to discuss proposals that are sufficiently advanced. By agreeing to a meeting, advisers may unwittingly cause clients to cross the line. Any active participation by lawyers in furthering the clients’ objectives may not necessarily be privileged, on the ground that privilege cannot be used as a cloak for iniquity. Again, this will depend on the circumstances of the case. In any event, even if a client does have a dishonest (or even fraudulent) intention, it will not always follow that the proposed conduct would be regarded as iniquitous by the court. It is likely therefore that privilege will only be lost in rare cases, if at all.

Conclusion

The decision has significant implications for both directors and employees, and those advising them. The message is clear: if a client has formulated an irrevocable intention to compete and wishes to avoid liability, he or she must usually be advised to resign. Obviously, a remedy in damages may survive if the employee’s activities are in breach of any posttermination restrictive covenants. Those acting as legal advisers must consider their own role as advisers in any such competitive activity, insofar as they assist a client’s wrongful acts and cause him or her to incur further liability.

The decision also does little for the common law’s traditional objective of keeping potential restraints of trade within reasonable bounds. As Arden LJ commented in Item Software v Fassihi (paragraph 63), an overly intrusive approach to the law would discourage legitimate entrepreneurial activity and would not be a beneficial outcome. The line drawn in Shepherds offers scant protection for employees contemplating the establishment of a competitor company, who fail to resign at an early date. Accordingly, entrepreneurial activities by employees in the same sector as their existing employment (which may well be the only sector they know) are now strongly discouraged.

Cases referred to:

Shepherds Investments Limited v Walters [2006] EWHC 836 (Ch)
Nottingham University v Fishel [2000] IRLR 471
Item Software (UK) Ltd v Fassihi [2004] EWCA Civ. 1244; [2005] ICR 450
Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 180
Balston v Headline Filters [1990] FSR 385
British Midland Tool Ltd v Midland International Tooling Ltd [2003] EWHC 466; [2003] 2 BCLC 523
Framlington Group v Anderson (1995) 1 BCLC 475.
Coleman v Oakes [2001] 2 BCLC 749.
Hivac Ltd v Park Royal Scientific Instruments Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 350

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions