Back

Please note our offices and reception are closed on Good Friday and Easter Monday. We will re-open as usual at 9am on Tuesday 22 April.

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

Employment Rights Bill: Employees to benefit from guaranteed hours & rights relating to shifts

Employment & business immigration

The Employment Rights Bill is shaking things up, with employees expected to benefit from guaranteed hours and rights relating to shifts. The government is committed to ending one-sided flexibility and…

Simon Pathé FCILEx
Partner, chartered legal executive

Supreme Court makes landmark decision on gender definitions

Employment & business immigration

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal for For Women Scotland Limited and has provided clarity on how ‘woman’, ‘man’ and ‘sex’ are to be defined. The decision acts…

Hifsa O'Kelly LLB (Hons)
Senior associate, solicitor

Employment Rights Bill: Changes to statutory sick pay

Employment & business immigration

As part of the all new Employment Rights Bill, it’s likely that changes to statutory sick pay could significantly impact you and your business. When the Employment Rights Bill becomes…

Simon Pathé FCILEx
Partner, chartered legal executive
Contact us