Insights / News
Insights / News
The injunction sought would have prevented the employee from working for a competitor for six months after the termination of his employment.
The main issue in the case was whether the non-compete covenant was drafted too broadly to be enforceable. It was found to be too wide. The contractual wording was insufficient to tie the prohibited activities to the sector of the former employee. The absence of a geographical restriction meant that the non-compete operated globally. The clause also forbade the employee from being involved ‘in any capacity’ with a business concern that competed with the employer – potentially covering a complete career change.
Employers seeking to prevent their employees from working for competitors need to tread a fine line when they draft non-compete covenants. If the clause is too wide, then it may be unenforceable. If the clause is too narrow, then it may not cover the competitive activity in question. The non-compete covenant in this case bit off more than it could chew.
Delay was also found to be a significant factor against the grant of an injunction. The employer had taken so long to bring the application that the employee had settled into new employment for almost four months, thereby creating a new status quo. The length of the period of pre-action correspondence was not a sufficient excuse.
Oliver Lawrence has an expansive tribunal and appellate employment practice. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal and regularly appears unled in the High Court, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Employment Tribunal, often against far more senior counsel. His clients range from household names to senior executives in cases across commercial employment, statutory employment and discrimination law.
To find out more about Oliver, contact Nick Levett on+44 (0)20 7427 4908 for a confidential discussion.
News 11 Feb, 2025