Back
We continue to provide our legal services through the COVID-19 pandemic. Please visit our COVID-19 Hub for legal insights, or contact us directly.
Get in Touch Menu

Restrictive covenants in employment contracts - the tide is turning

22 July 2014

A High Court case has recently demonstrated that the courts are more willing to uphold restrictive covenants.

Employers will welcome the recent judgment of the High Court in Prophet plc v Huggett in which it took a highly flexible approach to the interpretation of a non-compete clause. When read in its original form, the clause made no sense; the former employee was prohibited from working in a competing business “in connection with any products…which he was involved with whilst employed”. Prophet was a software developer so there could never be an occasion in which a former employee would use its products; rather, if they joined a competitor, they would be working on competing, similar products.

Historically, the courts have only used the “blue pencil” test to delete words in order to make a clause narrower and, therefore, more reasonable. What was surprising in this case was that the judge was prepared to amend the clause by adding the words “or similar thereto”. This widened the restriction to cover software products similar to Prophet’s thereby making it enforceable. Consequently, Mr Huggett was prevented from working for a competitor for 12 months.

This is the latest in a line of cases in which the courts have been more willing to uphold restrictive covenants. This trend has been driven in part by cases involving more senior, sophisticated employees who have had more equality of bargaining power over their terms of employment. However, there does appear to be a more general move towards taking a common-sense approach to such cases. This belies the often perceived wisdom that restrictions are unenforceable. This case shows that the courts will even strive to uphold non-compete clauses, which they have described as “the most powerful weapon in the employer’s armoury”.

That is not to say that employers can now take a lax approach to drafting their restrictive covenants. The courts will still expect to see that a legitimate business interest is being protected, and that the restriction goes no further than is necessary to protect that interest. These components are unlikely to change for the foreseeable future. It is therefore important for employers to review their restrictions and consider if their nature and duration is appropriate to their business and for each employee to which they apply.

We're here 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

IR35 and the off-payroll working rules

Employment & business immigration

IR35: The (delayed) new off-payroll working rules apply from 6 April 2021 Traditionally, contractors like being self-employed because they pay reduced National Insurance contributions, and are able to set various…

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

Asda – the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on ‘common terms’

Employment & business immigration

The Supreme Court has made a unanimous landmark decision that (mostly female) shop workers at Asda supermarkets can be compared to the (mostly male) warehouse workers, ruling that they are…

Jenny Hawrot LLB (Hons)
Senior associate, solicitor

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme guidance & updates

Employment & business immigration

Employment lawyers Matthew Clayton and Jenny Hawrot summarise the latest developments on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to emerge. Thursday 18 March 2021 From 1 April 2021, clinically vulnerable people in…

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