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+

Latest NewsEmployment contractsRestrictive covenants

Supreme Court overturns long-held principle on non-compete clauses

by Jo Faragher 3 Jul 2019
by Jo Faragher 3 Jul 2019 Mary-Caroline Tillman argued a non-compete clause in her contract was unenforceable
Jason Alden/Shutterstock
Mary-Caroline Tillman argued a non-compete clause in her contract was unenforceable
Jason Alden/Shutterstock

The Supreme Court has handed down a decision today that overturns a century-old principle on employee competition clauses.

The judges unanimously allowed an appeal in the case of Egon Zehnder v Tillman, rendering the non-compete clause set by the recruitment company enforceable and clarifying how employers should approach the drafting of non-compete clauses in employment contracts.

Restrictive covenants

Severance clause for restrictive covenants

Wording of restrictive covenants comes under Supreme Court spotlight

Non-compete clauses: limits of duration

The case centres on Mary-Caroline Tillman, who was hired by management consultancy and executive recruitment firm Egon Zehnder in 2004.

Tillman worked her way up to become its head of global financial services. In 2017 she left after being offered a role at a competitor, Russell Reynolds Associates.

Her employment contract included a number of post-termination restrictions including a non-compete clause that aimed to prevent her from working for a direct competitor for a period of six months.

One of the key clauses of her contract stated that she must not “directly or indirectly engage or be concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition with any of the businesses of the Company or any Group Company”.

Egon Zehnder applied to the High Court for an interim injunction to enforce this clause and was initially successful in preventing her move to Russell Reynolds.

In July 2018 Tillman appealed this decision at the Court of Appeal, which found in her favour.

In January this year, the case reached the Supreme Court, where the central issue was the Court of Appeal’s findings that the words “interested in…” in the non-compete clause rendered the covenant too wide as it prevented her from holding shares in a competing business regardless of the size of her interest.

The Supreme Court has now clarified that this was the case, in as much as restraint of trade was engaged by a prohibition on holding shares. It held that the words “interested in” in the context of Tillman’s contract could be severed and it would still be enforceable.

Today’s decision overrules previous guidance on how certain parts of contracts can be severed in the case of Attwood v Lamont in 1920.

Stefan Martin, partner at law firm Hogan Lovells, said: “The case is good news for employers looking to enforce restrictive covenants. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the courts have the power to ‘blue pencil’ offending words from defective covenants, rendering the remaining restrictions enforceable.

“Essentially, where removing the offending words from the covenant will not result in any major change in the overall effect of the restriction, the restriction will be upheld rather than failing. The decision will allow employers significant scope to argue that elements of a restriction should be observed even if the restriction in its full form is too widely drafted to be enforceable.”

Michael Chattle, associate at Taylor Wessing, said the decision was “a surprising one” that was mixed news for employers.

“While it was found that the restrictions were unduly wide, casting some doubt on the enforceability of many existing restrictions, the court appears to have a much wider remit than before to cut down clauses to what it considers reasonable and enforceable,” he said.

“This decision raises a number of questions for employers to grapple with and refocuses attention on the importance of ensuring that post-termination restrictions are precisely drafted and reviewed on a regular basis.

“On the basis of this decision, employers now may be encouraged to try to push for ever more wider and onerous restrictions with the expectation that a future court may apply a similar approach and cut it down to what it considers as reasonable.”

Nick Hurley, partner at Charles Russell Speechlys, said the decision would in future “give employers more leeway to correct poor drafting and enforce restrictions where words can simply be removed without losing the sense of the clause”.

“The courts cannot rewrite the clause to make it work, but can sever words where appropriate,” he added.

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.

 

HR Consultant opportunities on Personnel Today

Browse more HR Consultant jobs

Jo Faragher

Jo Faragher has been an employment and business journalist for 20 years. She regularly contributes to Personnel Today and writes features for a number of national business and membership magazines. Jo is also the author of 'Good Work, Great Technology', published in 2022 by Clink Street Publishing, charting the relationship between effective workplace technology and productive and happy employees. She won the Willis Towers Watson HR journalist of the year award in 2015 and has been highly commended twice.

previous post
Roadmap encourages employers to tackle ‘lifetime’ gender inequality
next post
Job insecurity fuelling university staff hardship

You may also like

Restaurant tips should be included in holiday pay

21 May 2025

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Pay awards in real terms could fall for...

21 May 2025

Ryanair demands flight attendants pay back salary increase

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Uncertainty over law hampering legal use of medical...

20 May 2025

Black security manager awarded £360k after decade of...

20 May 2025

Employers ‘worryingly’ ignorant about stress risk assessments

20 May 2025

UK and EU agree to collaborate on ‘youth...

19 May 2025

Immigration white paper: which jobs will be affected?

19 May 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+