Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawRestrictive covenants

Weekly dilemma: restrictive covenants

by Personnel Today 25 Feb 2010
by Personnel Today 25 Feb 2010

Q I am the director of a popular advertising agency. According to company policy, all of our senior staff have a restrictive covenant in their contract, forbidding them from joining a competitor until 12 months after resignation or redundancy. It has recently emerged that a former account manager has joined a rival agency. What are our options?

A To enforce the covenant, you would have to apply to the court for an injunction to prevent the former employee from continuing to work for the rival agency. Alternatively, you could bring court proceedings for compensation in respect of the breach of contract. You may be awarded compensation in respect of the loss of profit suffered by the business.

While breach of a restrictive covenant is essentially a breach of contract, unlike other legal proceedings where there has been a breach, you will have to convince the court that the restrictive covenant is valid. The starting point for the court is that contractual terms restricting employees’ post-employment activities are unenforceable. The principle behind this is that the term is void for being a restraint of trade in that it prevents an individual from earning a living.

The presumption of unenforceability can be overcome if you are able to demonstrate that the clause does no more than is necessary to protect legitimate business interests.

The non-competition-type restrictive covenant has traditionally been harder to enforce than other types, such as non-solicitation. This is because it may be so wide that it is seen as likely to prevent the employee from being able to work. However, the courts have, in recent years, given some encouragement to businesses to use them.

Most notably in Thomas v Farr plc and Hanover Park Commercial Limited 2007. The background was that the managing director, Mr Thomas, secured a job with a competitor and then sought a declaration that the non-compete clause was an unreasonable restraint of trade and unenforceable. The employer was able to show that Thomas was privy to sensitive, confidential information that would allow him to devise a strategy for the competitor to undercut them. It was submitted that the competition restraint was the only effective means of protecting the business from that risk. The High Court and Court of Appeal both upheld that the 12-month non-compete restriction was reasonable and enforceable.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

However, you may still face problems if the restriction is drafted so widely as to cover the whole advertising sector. In the Farr case, the covenant was qualified insofar as it covered only the particular part of the industry that the ex-employee had been involved in. If there had been no limitation, the clause may have been found to be excessive regardless of the risk posed by the employee on his departure.

Kerstie Skeaping, partner, Halliwells

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Case of the week: Muschett v HM Prison Service
next post
CIPD Associate membership level will boost HR recognition

You may also like

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Construction workers win compensation claim against defunct employer

9 May 2025

Zero-hours workers’ rights to be extended from beyond...

8 May 2025

Employment tribunal backlog up 23% in a year

7 May 2025

Ministers urged to outlaw misuse of NDAs

7 May 2025

Employment Rights Bill must be tightened to protect...

1 May 2025

Lords criticise ‘opaque’, ‘on-the-hoof’ Employment Rights Bill

30 Apr 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+