Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Employment lawCase law

Corporate Express Ltd v Day, High Court (QBD), 17 December 2004

by Personnel Today 19 Apr 2005
by Personnel Today 19 Apr 2005

Corporate Express Ltd v Day, High Court (QBD), 17 December 2004

Day worked for Corporate Express Ltd (CE) as a sales manager. Her employment contract contained two restrictive covenants that applied after termination: a six-month ban on soliciting and/or dealing with customers, and a six-month ban on working for certain major competitors.

When she left the company and started work for a competitor, CE brought proceedings against her for breach of covenant.

The court granted a declaration that the covenant was reasonable and enforceable. During her employment with CE, Day had access to confidential information which would be useful to CE’s competitors.

The company, therefore, had a legitimate interest in protecting itself from the misuse of this information by way of restrictive covenants.

The non-solicitation covenant was not sufficient on its own to achieve the necessary level of protection.

Therefore, weighing up the potential financial implications for CE against the short-term financial hardship for Day, it was reasonable of CE to require Day not to work for a major competitor for a period of six months.

However, the court refused to grant an injunction preventing Day from continuing to work for the competitor because the restraint period was nearly at an end and the court accepted that Day would lose her new job if an injunction was granted.

Avatar
Personnel Today

previous post
Bectu wins 100% vote from ITV’s Manchester catering staff
next post
The dangers of being over zealous in creating a diverse workforce

You may also like

MP demands timeline on carer’s leave legislation

13 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: absence of employment bill leaves organisations...

10 May 2022

Queen’s Speech: Exclusivity contracts for low-paid workers to...

9 May 2022

MP seeks legal protections for employees undergoing fertility...

9 May 2022

PwC staff to benefit from extended summer hours...

5 May 2022

School discriminated against Christian caretaker who tweeted against...

3 May 2022

A dark day for workers’ rights – why...

29 Apr 2022

P&O Ferries told to return £11m furlough money...

28 Apr 2022

Philosophical belief: barrister’s tribunal claim against Stonewall begins

26 Apr 2022

Modern slavery: 10% of companies fail to publish...

26 Apr 2022
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...Read more
  • Why now is the time to plug the unhealthy gap PROMOTED | We’ve all heard the term ‘health is wealth’...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+