KB-2025-003244 - [2025] EWHC 2386 (KB)

The terms of the proposed injunction are as follows:

“Until the trial of these proceedings or further order, the Defendant must not, without the prior written consent of the Claimant:

1.1.

contact any boxer, or any manager, agent, or representative of a boxer, in relation to any boxing-related activity other than for the Claimant’s benefit;

1.2.

engage in any work for or on behalf of any boxing-related venture (or proposed venture) other than that of the Claimant;

1.3.

contact any employees or staff of the Claimant in relation to their delivery or potential delivery of boxing-related services to anyone other than the Claimant;

1.4.

correspond with Sky UK Limited (“Sky”), or any representative of Sky, in relation to any boxing-related activity;

1.5.

correspond with any other third party or parties in relation to the Claimant or any fighter under contract with the Claimant other than for the Claimant’s benefit.”

The Claimant’s intention, in summary, is to prevent the Defendant from working for a competitor or potential competitor, or otherwise undermining the Claimant’s commercial interests, without trespassing on matters unrelated to boxing and without interfering with his ability to continue to discharge his role as the Claimant’s Head of Boxing if he is willing to do so.

Paragraph 1.1 of the draft injunction reflects clause 3.1.6 of the Agreement (“not to make any representations to any boxing […] fighter without the consent of Boxxer”) together with the general prohibitions on competing activity as embodied in clause 3.1.1, 3.9, and 6.1.2.

Paragraph 1.2 reflects those general prohibitions, in particular clause 6.1.2 (prohibiting involvement in any “business, trade, profession or occupation […] if it relates to a business which is similar to or in any way competitive with” that of the Claimant).

Paragraph 1.3 also flows from those general prohibitions, and seeks to make clear that, as well as not being permitted to work for a competitor himself, he is also not permitted to ‘tap up’ or solicit other employees of the Claimant to encourage them to do the same.

Paragraph 1.4 would specifically prevent the Defendant from corresponding with Sky in relation to boxing-related activity without the Claimant’s written consent. That, the Claimant submits, is an appropriate means of giving effect to the prohibitions on competing activity in circumstances where (i) there is evidence that the Defendant has already secretly corresponded with Sky in relation to a proposed competing venture, and (ii) the Defendant has himself said that Sky has offered him a job.

Paragraph 1.5, similar to subparagraph 3, is directed at the possibility that the Defendant will engage in activity contrary to the Claimant’s interest in concert with others, for example liaising with a third party about arrangements to attempt to induce the Claimant’s fighters to leave. It similarly flows from the general prohibitions on competing activity, restated as relevant to the particular circumstances of this case in order to maximise certainty and hold the ring until trial.

In my judgment the terms of the draft order are appropriate, reflecting as they do the terms the Claimant is seeking to enforce.