Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n\r\n \/* TranslatePress Automatic Display Rules *\/\r\n .tp-lang-block { display: none; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Albanian when TranslatePress language is SQ *\/\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL .tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] .tp-lang-sq { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show English when TranslatePress language is EN *\/\r\n body.translatepress-en_US .tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB .tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] .tp-lang-en { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Italian when TranslatePress language is IT *\/\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT .tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] .tp-lang-it { display: block; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/newsquarechambers.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/newsquare_images-2-scaled-3-600x400.webp\" alt=\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-sq\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors' undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>\u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: \"t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].\"<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"flex items-center justify-between p-6 rounded-2xl border-2 border-[var(--gold)] bg-[#1a0f0a] text-white my-8\">\r\n <div>\r\n <h4 class=\"serif text-lg font-bold text-[var(--gold)]\">Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF)<\/h4>\r\n <p class=\"text-sm text-gray-300 m-0\">Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <a href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786126337459.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"px-6 py-3 bg-[var(--gold)] text-white font-semibold rounded-full hover:bg-[var(--gold-light)] transition-all duration-300 shadow-md flex items-center gap-2\">\r\n Shkarko PDF\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-en\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"flex items-center justify-between p-6 rounded-2xl border-2 border-[var(--gold)] bg-[#1a0f0a] text-white my-8\">\r\n <div>\r\n <h4 class=\"serif text-lg font-bold text-[var(--gold)]\">Full Judgment Decision (PDF)<\/h4>\r\n <p class=\"text-sm text-gray-300 m-0\">Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <a href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786126337459.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"px-6 py-3 bg-[var(--gold)] text-white font-semibold rounded-full hover:bg-[var(--gold-light)] transition-all duration-300 shadow-md flex items-center gap-2\">\r\n Download PDF\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-it\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors' undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell'aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L'accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a \"non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell'Azione Collettiva prevista senza l'espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]\".<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">L'impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell'ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra gli studi legali. Successivamente, Harcus Sinclair ha accettato incarichi da un altro gruppo di attori in un contenzioso correlato senza ottenere il consenso di Your Lawyers. La controversia ha sollevato questioni fondamentali circa l'applicabilit\u00e0 dell'obbligo di non concorrenza e la giurisdizione di vigilanza della corte sugli impegni dei legali. La Corte Suprema ha esaminato se la propria giurisdizione di vigilanza si estenda agli impegni assunti dai legali per conto di enti autorizzati, se l'impegno di un legale che opera come restrizione al commercio debba essere valutato secondo principi contrattuali e se l'impegno fosse inapplicabile in quanto irragionevole restrizione del commercio.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La Corte Suprema ha confermato che la giurisdizione della corte sugli impegni dei legali svolge un ruolo importante nel mantenere gli standard professionali e la fiducia nell'amministrazione della giustizia. Tuttavia, laddove un impegno presenti anche caratteristiche contrattuali e operi come restrizione del commercio, la sua esecutivit\u00e0 deve essere valutata secondo i principi ordinari che regolano tali restrizioni. La Corte ha stabilito che l'obbligo di non concorrenza in questione era inapplicabile poich\u00e9 costituiva un'irragionevole restrizione del commercio. Sebbene la tutela delle informazioni riservate fosse un interesse legittimo, la restrizione andava oltre quanto necessario, impedendo ad Harcus Sinclair di agire per altri gruppi di attori senza il consenso di Your Lawyers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La decisione illustra un principio fondamentale dei contratti commerciali. Un obbligo contrattuale destinato a tutelare interessi legittimi deve rimanere proporzionato a tale scopo. La sentenza fornisce una preziosa guida per le parti che stipulano accordi di riservatezza, collaborazioni strategiche e altri contratti commerciali contenenti obblighi restrittivi.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"flex items-center justify-between p-6 rounded-2xl border-2 border-[var(--gold)] bg-[#1a0f0a] text-white my-8\">\r\n <div>\r\n <h4 class=\"serif text-lg font-bold text-[var(--gold)]\">Decisione Completa (PDF)<\/h4>\r\n <p class=\"text-sm text-gray-300 m-0\">Scarica il documento ufficiale della sentenza della Corte Suprema.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <a href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786126337459.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"px-6 py-3 bg-[var(--gold)] text-white font-semibold rounded-full hover:bg-[var(--gold-light)] transition-all duration-300 shadow-md flex items-center gap-2\">\r\n Scarica PDF\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors’ undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: “t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].” Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb. Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers. Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese. Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF) Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme. Shkarko PDF The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent. The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations. Full Judgment Decision (PDF) Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document. Download PDF La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors’ undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell’aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L’accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a “non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell’Azione Collettiva prevista senza l’espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]”. L’impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell’ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_thinkrank_schema_form_data":"","_thinkrank_selected_schema_type":"","_thinkrank_additional_schemas":"","_thinkrank_canonical_url":"","_thinkrank_og_title":"","_thinkrank_og_description":"","_thinkrank_og_image":"","_thinkrank_twitter_title":"","_thinkrank_twitter_description":"","_thinkrank_twitter_image":"","_thinkrank_imported_from":"","_thinkrank_focus_keywords":[],"_thinkrank_focus_keyword":"","_thinkrank_robots_meta_enabled":0,"_thinkrank_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_advanced_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors’ undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: “t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].” Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb. Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers. Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese. Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF) Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme. Shkarko PDF The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent. The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations. Full Judgment Decision (PDF) Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document. Download PDF La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors’ undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell’aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L’accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a “non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell’Azione Collettiva prevista senza l’espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]”. L’impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell’ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minuta\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade.\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1363,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\",\"name\":\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors’ undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: “t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].” Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb. Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers. Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese. Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF) Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme. Shkarko PDF The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent. The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations. Full Judgment Decision (PDF) Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document. Download PDF La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors’ undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell’aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L’accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a “non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell’Azione Collettiva prevista senza l’espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]”. L’impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell’ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"6 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade.","datePublished":"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/"},"wordCount":1363,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","name":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"sq"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4281"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4286,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281\/revisions\/4286"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n\r\n \/* TranslatePress Automatic Display Rules *\/\r\n .tp-lang-block { display: none; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Albanian when TranslatePress language is SQ *\/\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL .tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] .tp-lang-sq { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show English when TranslatePress language is EN *\/\r\n body.translatepress-en_US .tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB .tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] .tp-lang-en { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Italian when TranslatePress language is IT *\/\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT .tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] .tp-lang-it { display: block; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/newsquarechambers.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/newsquare_images-2-scaled-3-600x400.webp\" alt=\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-sq\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors' undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>\u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: \"t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].\"<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"flex items-center justify-between p-6 rounded-2xl border-2 border-[var(--gold)] bg-[#1a0f0a] text-white my-8\">\r\n <div>\r\n <h4 class=\"serif text-lg font-bold text-[var(--gold)]\">Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF)<\/h4>\r\n <p class=\"text-sm text-gray-300 m-0\">Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <a href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786126337459.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"px-6 py-3 bg-[var(--gold)] text-white font-semibold rounded-full hover:bg-[var(--gold-light)] transition-all duration-300 shadow-md flex items-center gap-2\">\r\n Shkarko PDF\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-en\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"flex items-center justify-between p-6 rounded-2xl border-2 border-[var(--gold)] bg-[#1a0f0a] text-white my-8\">\r\n <div>\r\n <h4 class=\"serif text-lg font-bold text-[var(--gold)]\">Full Judgment Decision (PDF)<\/h4>\r\n <p class=\"text-sm text-gray-300 m-0\">Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <a href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786126337459.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"px-6 py-3 bg-[var(--gold)] text-white font-semibold rounded-full hover:bg-[var(--gold-light)] transition-all duration-300 shadow-md flex items-center gap-2\">\r\n Download PDF\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-it\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors' undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell'aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L'accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a \"non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell'Azione Collettiva prevista senza l'espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]\".<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">L'impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell'ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra gli studi legali. Successivamente, Harcus Sinclair ha accettato incarichi da un altro gruppo di attori in un contenzioso correlato senza ottenere il consenso di Your Lawyers. La controversia ha sollevato questioni fondamentali circa l'applicabilit\u00e0 dell'obbligo di non concorrenza e la giurisdizione di vigilanza della corte sugli impegni dei legali. La Corte Suprema ha esaminato se la propria giurisdizione di vigilanza si estenda agli impegni assunti dai legali per conto di enti autorizzati, se l'impegno di un legale che opera come restrizione al commercio debba essere valutato secondo principi contrattuali e se l'impegno fosse inapplicabile in quanto irragionevole restrizione del commercio.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La Corte Suprema ha confermato che la giurisdizione della corte sugli impegni dei legali svolge un ruolo importante nel mantenere gli standard professionali e la fiducia nell'amministrazione della giustizia. Tuttavia, laddove un impegno presenti anche caratteristiche contrattuali e operi come restrizione del commercio, la sua esecutivit\u00e0 deve essere valutata secondo i principi ordinari che regolano tali restrizioni. La Corte ha stabilito che l'obbligo di non concorrenza in questione era inapplicabile poich\u00e9 costituiva un'irragionevole restrizione del commercio. Sebbene la tutela delle informazioni riservate fosse un interesse legittimo, la restrizione andava oltre quanto necessario, impedendo ad Harcus Sinclair di agire per altri gruppi di attori senza il consenso di Your Lawyers.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La decisione illustra un principio fondamentale dei contratti commerciali. Un obbligo contrattuale destinato a tutelare interessi legittimi deve rimanere proporzionato a tale scopo. La sentenza fornisce una preziosa guida per le parti che stipulano accordi di riservatezza, collaborazioni strategiche e altri contratti commerciali contenenti obblighi restrittivi.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <div class=\"flex items-center justify-between p-6 rounded-2xl border-2 border-[var(--gold)] bg-[#1a0f0a] text-white my-8\">\r\n <div>\r\n <h4 class=\"serif text-lg font-bold text-[var(--gold)]\">Decisione Completa (PDF)<\/h4>\r\n <p class=\"text-sm text-gray-300 m-0\">Scarica il documento ufficiale della sentenza della Corte Suprema.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <a href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1786126337459.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"px-6 py-3 bg-[var(--gold)] text-white font-semibold rounded-full hover:bg-[var(--gold-light)] transition-all duration-300 shadow-md flex items-center gap-2\">\r\n Scarica PDF\r\n <\/a>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors’ undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: “t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].” Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb. Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers. Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese. Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF) Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme. Shkarko PDF The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent. The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations. Full Judgment Decision (PDF) Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document. Download PDF La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors’ undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell’aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L’accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a “non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell’Azione Collettiva prevista senza l’espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]”. L’impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell’ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_thinkrank_schema_form_data":"","_thinkrank_selected_schema_type":"","_thinkrank_additional_schemas":"","_thinkrank_canonical_url":"","_thinkrank_og_title":"","_thinkrank_og_description":"","_thinkrank_og_image":"","_thinkrank_twitter_title":"","_thinkrank_twitter_description":"","_thinkrank_twitter_image":"","_thinkrank_imported_from":"","_thinkrank_focus_keywords":[],"_thinkrank_focus_keyword":"","_thinkrank_robots_meta_enabled":0,"_thinkrank_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_advanced_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4281","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"sq_AL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors’ undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: “t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].” Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb. Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers. Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese. Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF) Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme. Shkarko PDF The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent. The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations. Full Judgment Decision (PDF) Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document. Download PDF La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors’ undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell’aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L’accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a “non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell’Azione Collettiva prevista senza l’espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]”. L’impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell’ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minuta\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade.\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1363,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\",\"name\":\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade.\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"sq\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"sq\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","og_locale":"sq_AL","og_type":"article","og_title":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 – Petani Law & Tax Analiz\u00eb Juridike \u2022 UK Supreme Court Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 Gjykata Supreme e Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve dhe kufizimet e tregtis\u00eb Vendimi i Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme t\u00eb Mbret\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb Bashkuar n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme mbi marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnien midis garancive t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve (solicitors’ undertakings), detyrimeve kontraktuale dhe doktrin\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor \u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi nga nj\u00eb padi e propozuar grupore lidhur me emetimet e naft\u00ebs t\u00eb Volkswagen. N\u00eb prill 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP dhe Your Lawyers Ltd lidh\u00ebn nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje moszbulimi n\u00eb lidhje me bashk\u00ebpunimin e tyre. Marr\u00ebveshja p\u00ebrmbante nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb moskonkurrence sipas s\u00eb cil\u00ebs Harcus Sinclair merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr: “t\u00eb mos pranonte udh\u00ebzime ose t\u00eb vepronte n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb ndonj\u00eb grupi tjet\u00ebr Padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb Padin\u00eb Grupore t\u00eb parashikuar pa lejen e shprehur t\u00eb [Your Lawyers].” Garancia u dha n\u00eb kuadrin e shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb informacionit konfidencial midis firmave. M\u00eb pas, Harcus Sinclair pranoi udh\u00ebzime nga nj\u00eb grup tjet\u00ebr padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjime t\u00eb lidhura pa marr\u00eb lejen e Your Lawyers. Mosmarr\u00ebveshja ngriti pyetje thelb\u00ebsore lidhur me zbatueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e garancis\u00eb s\u00eb moskonkurrenc\u00ebs dhe juridiksionin mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve. Gjykata Supreme shqyrtoi, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, n\u00ebse juridiksioni i saj i brendsh\u00ebm mbik\u00ebqyr\u00ebs shtrihet mbi garancit\u00eb e dh\u00ebna nga avokat\u00ebt n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb trupave t\u00eb autorizuar p\u00ebrmes t\u00eb cil\u00ebve ata ushtrojn\u00eb profesionin, n\u00ebse garancia e nj\u00eb avokati q\u00eb vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas parimeve kontraktuale, dhe n\u00ebse garancia ishte e pazbatueshme si nj\u00eb kufizim i arsyesh\u00ebm i tregtis\u00eb. Gjykata Supreme konfirmoi se juridiksioni i brendsh\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs mbi garancit\u00eb e avokat\u00ebve ka nj\u00eb rol t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm n\u00eb ruajtjen e standardeve profesionale dhe besimit n\u00eb administrimin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Sidoqoft\u00eb, ku nj\u00eb garanci ka gjithashtu karakteristika kontraktuale dhe vepron si kufizim n\u00eb tregti, zbatueshm\u00ebria e saj duhet t\u00eb konsiderohet sipas parimeve t\u00eb zakonshme q\u00eb qeverisin kufizime t\u00eb tilla. Gjykata vendosi se detyrimi i moskonkurrenc\u00ebs n\u00eb fjal\u00eb ishte i pazbatuesh\u00ebm sepse p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte nj\u00eb kufizim t\u00eb paarsyesh\u00ebm t\u00eb tregtis\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e informacionit konfidencial ishte nj\u00eb interes i ligjsh\u00ebm, kufizimi shkoi m\u00eb tej se sa ishte e nevojshme duke parandaluar Harcus Sinclair t\u00eb vepronte p\u00ebr grupe t\u00eb tjera padit\u00ebsish n\u00eb litigjin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs pa p\u00eblqimin e Your Lawyers. Vendimi ilustron nj\u00eb parim t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb kontraktimit komercial. Nj\u00eb detyrim kontraktual i dizajnuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb mbrojtur interese t\u00eb ligjshme duhet t\u00eb mbetet proporcional me at\u00eb q\u00ebllim. Vendimi ofron udh\u00ebzime t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pal\u00ebt q\u00eb hyjn\u00eb n\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje konfidencialiteti, bashk\u00ebpunime strategjike dhe marr\u00ebveshje t\u00eb tjera komerciale q\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajn\u00eb detyrime kufizuese. Vendimi i Plot\u00eb (PDF) Shkarkoni dokumentin zyrtar t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Supreme. Shkarko PDF The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade The UK Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 provides important guidance on the relationship between solicitors\u2019 undertakings, contractual obligations and the doctrine of restraint of trade. Case Summary & Legal Reasoning The case arose from a proposed group action concerning Volkswagen diesel emissions. In April 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP and Your Lawyers Ltd entered into a non-disclosure agreement in connection with their cooperation. The agreement contained a non-compete provision under which Harcus Sinclair undertook: \u201cnot to accept instructions for or to act on behalf of any other group of Claimants in the contemplated Group Action without the express permission of [Your Lawyers].\u201d The undertaking was given in the context of the exchange of confidential information between the firms. Subsequently, Harcus Sinclair accepted instructions from another group of claimants in related litigation without obtaining Your Lawyers\u2019 permission. The dispute raised fundamental questions regarding the enforceability of the non-compete undertaking and the court\u2019s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings. The Supreme Court considered, among other issues, whether the court\u2019s inherent supervisory jurisdiction extends to undertakings given by solicitors on behalf of authorised bodies through which they practise, whether a solicitor\u2019s undertaking that operates as a restriction on trade should be assessed according to contractual principles, whether the undertaking was unenforceable as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Supreme Court confirmed that the court\u2019s inherent jurisdiction over solicitors\u2019 undertakings has an important role in maintaining professional standards and confidence in the administration of justice. However, where an undertaking also has contractual characteristics and operates as a restraint on trade, its enforceability must be considered under the ordinary principles governing such restrictions. The Court held that the non-compete obligation in question was unenforceable because it constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. While the protection of confidential information was a legitimate interest, the restriction went further than necessary by preventing Harcus Sinclair from acting for other claimant groups in the relevant litigation without Your Lawyers\u2019 consent. The decision illustrates an important principle of commercial contracting. A contractual obligation designed to protect legitimate interests must remain proportionate to that purpose. The judgment provides valuable guidance for parties entering into confidentiality arrangements, strategic collaborations and other commercial agreements containing restrictive obligations. Full Judgment Decision (PDF) Download the official UK Supreme Court judgment document. Download PDF La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito sulle impegni dei legali e restrizioni al commercio La decisione della Corte Suprema del Regno Unito nel caso Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd [2021] UKSC 32 fornisce importanti indicazioni sul rapporto tra gli impegni dei legali (solicitors’ undertakings), gli obblighi contrattuali e la dottrina della restrizione del commercio. Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica La causa \u00e8 scaturita da una proposta di azione collettiva riguardante le emissioni diesel di Volkswagen. Nell’aprile 2016, Harcus Sinclair LLP e Your Lawyers Ltd hanno stipulato un accordo di riservatezza in relazione alla loro cooperazione. L’accordo conteneva una clausola di non concorrenza con cui Harcus Sinclair si impegnava a “non accettare incarichi o agire per conto di qualsiasi altro gruppo di Attori nell’Azione Collettiva prevista senza l’espressa autorizzazione di [Your Lawyers]”. L’impegno \u00e8 stato assunto nell’ambito dello scambio di informazioni riservate tra","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Stafi","Est. reading time":"6 minuta"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade.","datePublished":"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/"},"wordCount":1363,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/","name":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade. - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-08T09:59:33+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-08T10:01:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"sq","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/the-uk-supreme-court-on-solicitors-undertakings-and-restraints-on-trade\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The UK Supreme Court on Solicitors\u2019 undertakings and restraints on trade."}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"sq"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"sq","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4281"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4286,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4281\/revisions\/4286"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4281"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4281"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4281"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}