Back
We continue to provide our legal services through the COVID-19 lockdown. 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

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme guidance & updates

Employment & business immigration

Our employment lawyers summarise the latest developments on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to emerge. Friday 31 July 2020 The redundancy pay of furloughed workers who lose their jobs from…

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

Section 1 statement rule changes - what employers should know

Employment & business immigration

Avid readers of Employment Law Dispatches would have seen our piece about the changes to the minimum information that must be given to employees regarding their terms and conditions of…

Jenny Hawrot LLB (Hons)
Senior associate, solicitor

Flexible furlough scheme - what employers need to know

Employment & business immigration

The government has now released details of the new flexible furlough scheme, which employers can take advantage of from 1 July 2020, under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. In short,…

Jenny Hawrot LLB (Hons)
Senior associate, solicitor
Contact us