The case involved a two-year agency agreement signed by Rooney when he was 15. Clearly, the starting point is that any contract with a minor is voidable. There are, however, two exceptions. Firstly, there are contracts for ‘necessaries’ (eg basics such as food and clothing). Secondly, there is an exception for those contracts that are analogous to a contract for apprenticeship, service or other benefit. If the contract is beneficial to the minor then it can be binding. In the litigation involving Rooney, the agent argued that the contract came within this exception, since it related to Rooney’s employment as a footballer (providing him with representation, management and advice whilst he was learning his trade with Everton).

The agent’s case was summarily dismissed. The key point was that Rooney was already signed with Everton at the time he entered into the agency agreement. Thus, it was Everton that paid his wages and provided him with training (ie he did not need an agent to help him make a living). Moreover, the contract did not require the agent to pursue commercial deals (eg the sale of image rights). Accordingly, the contract did not come within the exception and it followed that it was voidable.

The issues raised in the Rooney case are important for those involved in the talent sector. To an extent, the decision encourages the poaching of talent who sign agreements under the age of 18. Given that concern, the best approach for those contracting with minors must be to ensure that the contract is genuinely binding on the minor (and so not voidable). This might be done by negotiating and securing contracts (eg with football clubs or for related commercial revenue streams) shortly after entering into the contract with the minor. This would ensure the contract assists the minor to earn a living. At the same time, an element of training (eg media or financial training) that assists the talent in his or her career could also be enough. Unless those precautions are taken, agents who sign with minors could well find that the time and money they invest in their young stars is wasted, when those clients decide to go elsewhere (perhaps as a result of poaching activities). See commentary by Kendall Freeman on Proform v Proactive [2006] EWHC 2812 (Ch) in [2007] The In-House Lawyer May p44. © Practical Lawyer