Boxing promoter Boxxer Limited delivers knockout blow to executive

Background

Wischusen was first engaged by Boxxer in 2020 under an agreement that covered only a short period of a few months.  After the agreement's expiry, he continued to work for the boxing promoter for several years, becoming an integral member of the team.  The original agreement included terms that Wischhusen would not work for any other UK promoters, take any action which would damage Boxxer and/or divulge any information about Boxxer to any other parties.

Boxxer drew up a new draft consultancy agreement in January 2024. While it was agreed that this was not finalised or signed by the parties, Boxxer argued that Wischhusen's continued appointment was governed in accordance with its terms, which contained various clauses restricting Wischhusen from working for a competitor.  In addition, Wischhusen was fundamental to Boxxer's promotional activities in boxing and considered a key figure in a contract between Boxxer and Sky Sports which ran from 2021 to June 2025.

Behind the scenes

In August 2025, Wischhusen notified Boxxer's founder and CEO that he would be leaving the business.  It subsequently transpired that Wischhusen had for some time been in contact with Sky, who had confirmed to Boxxer in May 2025 that its £36m contract expiring on 30 June 2025 would not be renewed.

Wischhusen's activities are the focal point of the dispute with Boxxer, who allege that it can evidence Wischhusen had been enquiring about potential venue availability for an event not planned by Boxxer, and of communicating with Sky about a new venture. Boxxer submitted emails, which Wischhusen admitted he had attempted to delete, demonstrating various communications with Sky detailing plans and budgets for future events and business endeavours. Boxxer argued that the communications also evidenced that Wischhusen was undermining the attempts of Boxxer to renew its own agreement with Sky.

As a result of Wischhusen's conduct, Boxxer issued a claim for breach of contract and sought injunctive relief restraining Wischhusen from working with a competitor for the duration of the restrictions contained in the 2024 consultancy agreement. Wischhusen denied the claims and sought to resist Boxxer's application.

Round 1 to Boxxer

Mrs Justice Hill granted the interim injunction in favour of Boxxer.  In doing so, she worked through the principles set out in American Cyanamid v Ethicorn [1975]:

1. There was a clear serious issue to be tried between the parties.

2. Damages would not be an adequate remedy for Boxxer.  Wischhusen held a significant role within Boxxer, which is at a particularly important moment in its commercial development.  If he was able to work for a competitor during this time, it could cause harm to Boxxer's reputation and undermine Boxxer's stability and credibility with its current and future commercial partners.

3. If it later transpires that the injunction should not have been granted, damages compensating Mr Wischhusen would be an adequate remedy.  This was due to several factors:

• Boxxer had confirmed it would continue to pay Wischhusen's monthly fee, so he was not prevented from earning;
• As Wischhusen did not have any actionable job offers from other businesses, he would, at most, be delayed in starting a new venture;
• A delay in business generation is not a valid reason to refuse an injunction; and
• Boxxer had demonstrated its financial capability to settle any potential subsequent award for damages.

4. The balance of convenience weighed in favour of granting an interim injunction.  This was on the basis that Wischhusen accepted that he had been sending business proposals to Sky at the same time that Boxxer was attempting to negotiate a renewal of its agreement with Sky.  Further, Wischhusen had effectively confirmed that, unless restrained, he intended to contravene what Boxxer alleged to be his contractual obligations. Mrs Justice Hill also noted that the risk of irremediable injustice impacting Wischhusen was lesser than the potential harm to Boxxer if no injunction was granted.

The substantive hearing of Boxxer’s claims for injunctive relief and damages is expected to be heard in November 2025.

Key takeaways

You can't win anything without a strong defence and Boxxer's interim injunction is a great example of how well-drafted non-competition clauses and acting fast can protect business interests in the sporting world.

This decision also provides a useful reminder for sports organisations to review their contractual and employment agreements to ensure they are taking care of talent while also protecting their commercial interests.

If you would like to discuss any concerns you may have with your contractual documentation, or to explore ways of reviewing your agreements, we would love to speak with you.