0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

be careful with your covenants

17 February 2012

Non solicitation clauses are commonplace in senior employees’ employment contracts. But how can an employer show that an employee has ‘solicited’ its clients? In the case of Towry EJ Limited v Barry Bennett and others, the employer was not able to show that their former clients had moved to a former employee’s current business due to any request, persuasion or encouragement by that former employee. Solicitation could not be inferred from the fact that a “tidal wave” of clients had moved to the former employee’s business, even though that might well look suspicious.

With the burden of proof lying squarely with the employer in trying to enforce restrictive covenants, careful consideration needs to be given to their drafting at the outset. A non-dealing clause may have proved more effective in this case with the employee being placed on garden leave to prevent them from having contact with key clients during their notice period.

related opinions

Furloughed employees entitled to full pay for redundancy purposes

The government has brought in new legislation to ensure that any employees who have been furloughed will have their statutory redundancy pay calculated based on their full-time wages as opposed their furloughed pay in the event that they are made redundant.

View blog

Return to work – all change or more of the same?

The Government has announced that its workplace guidance will change with effect from 1 August and its “work from home” message will be removed.

View blog

Will there be a return of employment tribunal fees?

The Government is reportedly considering the reinstatement of tribunal fees in respect of employment claims.

View blog

Redundancy: competitive interview processes

In this case, the Respondent’s appeal was unsuccessful. In the first instance, the decision that it unfairly dismissed various claimants following the closure of the school where they worked. The Claimants were unsuccessful in applying for substantially similar positions at a new school that opened at the same site. Read more here.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up