Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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

Employee relationsEmployee communicationsLatest News

Case of the week: post-termination restraint clauses

by Personnel Today 10 Jul 2007
by Personnel Today 10 Jul 2007

Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd and others v Hall and others (Court of Appeal)

When is a post-termination restraint clause enforceable? Is a 12-month restraint too long? In Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd and others v Hall and others, the Court of Appeal gave some useful guidance in the context of the financial services sector.

Facts

Beckett Investment Management Group (BIMG) was a holding company. Its subsidiary, Beckett Financial Services (BFS), provided financial advice. Two senior employees, Hall and Yadev, worked at the office of BFS as financial advisers. Both resigned around the same time to start up their own competing business.

Both of their contracts of employment had been made between the employees and BIMG (the holding company). The contracts contained a ‘non-dealing’ clause to restrain the employees from providing “advice of a type provided by the company in the ordinary course of its business”. The contracts defined “the company” as BIMG (without including its subsidiary, BFS). However, BIMG did not provide any financial advice because it was merely a holding company. The restraints applied for 12 months post-termination.

The employees argued that they were free to provide financial advice to clients of BFS because the non-dealing clause only applied to BIMG. They also argued that the period of 12 months was arbitrary and excessive, so the clause was unenforceable.

Decision

The judge agreed with the employees, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision, saying the trial judge took a view of the clause that was too literal. It said that the purpose of the non-dealing clause was clearly to protect the employer from losing its clients to the employees, and that the parties were aware of this purpose when they made the contracts. In the court’s view, the “only sensible construction” of the clause was that it also applied to BFS.

The original judge also found that 12 months was too long a period to restrain the employees from dealing, making the clause unenforceable. He considered three months to be reasonable.

Again, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It took into account the facts that:



  • the employees were senior and important to the business
  • it would be difficult and time consuming to replace the employees
  • the clients might only contact BFS annually
  • the industry standard is 12 months.

The court held that, on those facts, 12 months was not too long, but noted that a longer period would have been unreasonable and unenforceable.

Key implications

The positive message for employers is that the law is willing to recognise the realities of big business when interpreting restraint clauses. It will take a practical approach to corporate identity, accepting that corporate groups are often actually “one concern under one supreme control”, even when they are made up of several companies.

The case also provides useful guidance on the duration and breadth of restraint clauses. Some of the comments in the judgment suggest that if the employees in this case had been more junior and replaceable, then 12 months would have been too long. The industry standard for financial services was also important, meaning that 12 months might be seen as excessive in other industries.

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.

Despite the practical approach of the court in this case, the wording of restraint clauses cannot be overlooked. A restraint that is too broad will still often be unenforceable. Employers should review their restraint clauses in light of this decision to ensure they are drafted as effectively as possible.

Eliza Meehan, professional support lawyer, Allen & Overy

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
Visa applications centres closure plan raises fears of more potential terrorists getting jobs in the UK
next post
Human resources salary survey: the demise of HR bonuses

You may also like

A third of UK employers use ‘bossware’ to...

15 Sep 2025

Employment lawyers voice AI fears on tribunal claims

15 Sep 2025

Day one rights to make 86% more cautious...

14 Sep 2025

Barclays Bank boss warns Reeves over public sector...

12 Sep 2025

MPs probe Asda financial links with workplace lender

12 Sep 2025

Companies named for failing to report gender pay...

12 Sep 2025

Business rates rises could put 100k retail jobs...

12 Sep 2025

How to steer EDI through a ‘permacrisis’

12 Sep 2025

Immigration: ‘Hyundai factory raid is threat to US...

12 Sep 2025

Sainsbury’s manager awarded £60k following colleague’s aggressive behaviour

11 Sep 2025

  • Workplace health benefits need to be simplified SPONSORED | Long-term sickness...Read more
  • Work smart – stay well: Avoid unnecessary pain with centred ergonomics SPONSORED | If you often notice...Read more
  • Elevate your L&D strategy at the World of Learning 2025 SPONSORED | This October...Read more
  • How to employ a global workforce from the UK (webinar) WEBINAR | With an unpredictable...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 Live
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
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
    • Recruitment & retention
    • Wellbeing
    • Occupational Health
    • 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