Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC Ch J96 (26 May 1852)

Opera singer Johanna Wagner contracted to sing exclusively for Lumley's theatre but then agreed to perform for a rival. The court granted an injunction preventing her from singing elsewhere, enforcing the negative stipulation, despite being unable to compel specific performance.

Facts

The claimant, Benjamin Lumley, was the lessee of Her Majesty’s Theatre. He entered into a contract with the defendant, Johanna Wagner, a celebrated opera singer, for her to perform exclusively at his theatre for a three-month period. A key term of the agreement was a negative stipulation, stating that Mdlle. Wagner would not use her talents at any other theatre or take any other engagement during this time without Mr. Lumley’s written permission. Subsequently, Mdlle. Wagner agreed to sing for the defendant Mr. Gye, the lessee of the rival Royal Italian Opera, Covent Garden, for a larger sum. Mr. Lumley sought an injunction to prevent Mdlle. Wagner from performing at Covent Garden. The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction, and the defendants appealed that decision to the Lord Chancellor.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether a court of equity could grant an injunction to restrain the breach of a negative covenant in a personal services contract, especially when the court could not order specific performance of the positive part of the agreement (i.e., it could not compel Mdlle. Wagner to sing for Mr. Lumley).

Judgment

The Lord Chancellor, Lord St. Leonards, dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction. He undertook a detailed review of the existing case law, distinguishing cases such as Kemble v. Kean where an injunction had been refused. The Lord Chancellor held that the court’s inability to enforce the entire contract did not prevent it from enforcing a clear and distinct negative promise within it. He reasoned that the positive agreement to sing for Lumley and the negative agreement not to sing elsewhere were part of a single, indivisible contract. While the court lacked the means to compel her to sing, it could prevent her from committing an act she expressly promised not to do.

It will not suffer her to depart from her agreement at her pleasure, leaving the Plaintiff to his remedy of an action for damages: it is true, that I have not the means of compelling her to sing, but she has no cause of complaint, if I compel her to abstain from the commission of an act which she has bound herself not to do, and thus possibly cause her to fulfil her engagement.

The Court reasoned that damages would be an inadequate remedy for Mr. Lumley, given the unique and exceptional talent of Mdlle. Wagner, the loss of which could not be quantified in monetary terms.

Implications

This case is a landmark authority in contract law regarding equitable remedies. It established the principle that a court may enforce a negative stipulation in a personal services contract by way of an injunction, even where the contract’s positive obligations are not capable of being specifically enforced. The decision provides an indirect method of encouraging performance by preventing the contracting party from offering their services to a competitor. This principle, often referred to as the rule in Lumley v Wagner, remains a crucial tool in cases involving unique talents or services, creating a significant exception to the general reluctance of courts to enforce personal service contracts.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed, and the injunction preventing Johanna Wagner from singing at any theatre other than the plaintiff’s without his consent was upheld.

Source: Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC Ch J96 (26 May 1852)