Back
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

Disclaimer: All legal information is correct at the time of publication but please be aware that laws may change over time. This article contains general legal information but should not be relied upon as legal advice. Please seek professional legal advice about your specific situation - contact us; we’d be delighted to help.
Contact
Matthew Clayton MA LLM (Cantab), CIPP/E
Partner
View profile
Mathew Clayton
Related services
Share this article
Resources to help

Related articles

Government plans for more certain working hours for employees

Employment & business immigration

The new Labour government has scrapped the Conservative bill that gives workers the right to request a predictable working pattern, in favour of stronger, more certain working hours. As well…

Hifsa O'Kelly LLB (Hons)
Associate, solicitor

TUPE: New rules are now in effect

Employment & business immigration

Changes to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) are now in effect for transfers taking place on or after 1 July 2024. The new rules relating…

Jenny Hawrot LLB (Hons)
Partner

Tipping Act to be introduced on 1 October 2024

Employment & business immigration

The new ‘Tipping Act’ will come into force on 1 October 2024. The new Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 – also known as the Tipping Act – is to…

Klára Grmelová MGR (LLM Czech)
Solicitor
Contact us