Supreme Court backs employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd
The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.
The Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd has determined that where post-termination restrictive covenants (i.e. “non-compete” clauses) in employment contracts go further than reasonably necessary to protect an employer’s business interests, it can apply the ‘blue pencil test,’ severing the offending words and leaving the remaining enforceable clause in place.
The new test for severance is whether the objectionable words can be deleted without:
- adding to the remaining wording; or
- generating any major change in the overall effect of all the post-employment restraints in the contract.
It therefore appears that previous case law decisions (indicating that all restrictive covenants containing unreasonable restrictions are void in their entirety for restricting trade) has been overruled.
However, what constitutes a “major change” was not defined in Tillman and so this will likely be debated in future litigation and case law.
This decision is good news for employers seeking to curtail an ex-employee’s activities after termination. Even where there may be an element of unreasonableness in the employment contract, employers should still be allowed to enforce all reasonable restrictions.
However, relying on the Court should not be regarded as a substitute for making sure covenants are carefully worded in the first place.
Employers may be penalised when it comes to costs if it is found that the restrictions ought to have been more tailored in the first place. And of course - even in the absence of any costs penalties - it is ultimately far better to avoid this costly kind of litigation.
The Tillman litigation will have cost the parties at least six figures in costs each and, as is usual in litigation, the successful party will likely only recover around 2/3 of its costs against the unsuccessful party.
Contact
Mark Hickson
Head of Business Development
onlineteaminbox@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)370 270 6000
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Press Release
Fixing local government standards regime would help us to do our jobs, say monitoring officers at Browne Jacobson and LGiU roundtable
Legal Update
Landmark judgment in OCS Group UK Limited v Community Health Partnerships Limited
Opinion
Can teachers personal and political views amount to misconduct?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson to advise East London Waste Authority on major waste programme
Legal Update
Government updates guidance on holiday rules: What employers need to know
Legal Update
Holiday pay: Government change clarifies treatment of term time only workers
Legal Update
Subsidy control guidance update - welcome guidance on “small subsidies” introduced
Legal Update
Cyber-attacks in UK universities: Why failing to prepare is no longer an option
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Greater Manchester Combined Authority on its investment in Beryl
Opinion
School attendance matters
Published Article
Government's asset sale plan: Short-term fix or long-term disaster?
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - March 2024
Press Release
Browne Jacobson successful for National Lottery in Court of Appeal
Legal Update
Charity law update – March 2024
Opinion
Caregivers at work: Navigating new carer's leave regulations
Opinion
EHRC publishes new guidance on menopause and the workplace
Press Release
Browne Jacobson supports establishment of East Midlands Combined County Authority
Opinion
Fire and re-hire: Updated statutory code summary for employers
Press Release
At the forefront of society’s biggest issues - a reflection of our public sector work throughout 2023
Legal Update
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advises Blazehill Capital on senior credit facility
Legal Update
The Home Affairs Committee launched another inquiry into fraud - Stop! Think Fraud
Legal Update
UK falls to lowest position for corruption – so what’s going wrong?
Legal Update
How do holiday pay reforms affect the education sector?
Legal Update
Streamlined routes for subsidies
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2024
Legal Update
Revised Acas Code of Practice on requests for flexible working
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement reform: Making poor performance a thing of the past
Legal Update
Restrictive covenants – look before you leap!
Legal Update
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: Supply chain issues
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: Protected characteristics from discrimination in employment law
Opinion
Settlement agreements: Court of Session finds future claims may be settled
Legal Update
Holiday reforms: What employers need to know
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors’ Duty of Care
Legal Update
Employment law in 2024: How changes impact education
Legal Update
Backpay for leavers: Employers risk unlawful deduction from wages claims
Press Release - Firm news
Browne Jacobson bolsters presence in Wales with three new appointments
