Back
Effective 1 June, we have a new address: 34 Imperial Square, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1QZ
Get in Touch Menu

Enforcing restrictive covenants

20 November 2012

A recent case illustrates the difficulties employers can face when trying to enforce restrictive covenants in employment contracts.

In CEF Holdings Ltd v Mundey and others, the court refused to restrict a group of individuals from competing with their former employer.

A term restricting a former employee’s activities is void for being a restriction on trade unless the employer can show that such a term is reasonable and necessary to protect an interest.

In this case, a number of CEF’s employees, including two managers, joined Yesss Electrical, a business set up to compete with CEF. The managers had no restrictive covenants in their contracts. However, their former employer argued that they were in breach of their duties owed to CEF and also that they had sought to entice former colleagues to join Yesss. All the remaining defendants had express restrictions in their contracts. CEF also applied for a ‘springboard injunction’, a mechanism to prevent the managers gaining an unfair early advantage by using contacts they had made while with CEF.

The court found that the express employee restrictions were invalid because they were unreasonably wide. They also took account of the absence of comparable restrictions for the managers and the fact that the employees only had to give a week’s notice – both of which undermined CEF’s argument that they had a legitimate and vital interest to protect. The application for a springboard injunction was also rejected because of the absence of post-termination restrictions in the managers’ contracts and the fact that they did not owe any fiduciary duty to CEF.

Restrictive covenants are a grey area of the law: just because they are written down does not mean they are automatically enforceable. Clearly when deciding if restrictions are reasonable, the courts now take account of comparable covenants and length of notice periods in fellow employees’ contracts, so this is an area where employers must tread carefully.

As always, if you need commercial and pragmatic legal advice, we’re here to help so please get in touch.

Contact us

Contact
Matthew Clayton MA LLM (Cantab), CIPP/E
Partner
View profile
Mathew Clayton
Related services
Share this article
Resources to help

Related articles

A new gateway for pay equality

Employment & business immigration

A recent case has paved the way for employers to be more transparent in identifying equal work and pay. For the first time, a tribunal has ordered a company to…

Jenny Hawrot LLB (Hons)
Partner

Major Supreme Court ruling finds paid holiday for part-year workers cannot be pro-rated

Employment & business immigration

On 20 July 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Harpur Trust v Brazel that part-year workers should not have their paid holiday pro-rated. Here,…

Matthew Clayton MA LLM (Cantab), CIPP/E
Partner

“It’s too hot to work” - or is it?

Employment & business immigration

If this is the cry you are hearing from your staff during the current heatwave, you may be interested to know that although health and safety laws say that working…

Matthew Clayton MA LLM (Cantab), CIPP/E
Partner
Contact us