In the recent case of Boydell v NZP Ltd and others [2023] EWCA Civ 373 the Court of Appeal considered two key issues in relation to a non-compete clause: First with regard to severance: whether the High Court’s decision to sever words from a non-compete clause went beyond the principles set out by the Supreme
In France, the rules governing post-termination, non-compete and/or non-solicitation clauses in employment contracts have been established through case law. Restrictive covenants in an employment contract are only considered enforceable by French courts if they meet the following criteria (which are cumulative) :
– They do not extend beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the
In the case of Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court has upheld a 6-month non-compete covenant, adopting the more liberal approach to the rules of severance.
The Court ruled that on its proper construction, the covenant was unreasonably wide in that it restrained the employee from holding a minority shareholding
In the UK, a post termination restrictive covenant will be void for being in restraint of trade unless the employer has a legitimate business interest to protect and the protection sought is no more than is reasonable to protect that interest. The interests which can be protected are clients, staff, and confidential information. One type
Powell River Industrial Sheet Metal Contracting Inc. (P.R.I.S.M.) v Kramchynski, 2016 BCSC 883, is a decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia that dealt with the enforcement of a restrictive covenant in the context of a commercial transaction. The decision stands for the proposition that a court may refuse to enforce a restrictive covenant
In order to best protect the employer’s commercial interests and competitiveness, it is often crucial to include restrictive covenants in employment contracts. It is of equal importance to ensure that these covenants respect the limits established in the case law for them to be enforceable by the courts. Indeed, they may be deemed null and
The legal framework for post-contractual non-compete covenants is unchanged since our last post on the topic in 2013. It is nevertheless worth mentioning the following interesting court decisions which deal with the enforceability of employee restraints and the employer’s obligation to pay compensation:
Background
The relevant English law relating to post-termination of employment restrictions (PTRs) arises from case law around the doctrine of restraint of trade, rather than statute.
The basic starting point is that PTRs are void on the basis that they amount to unlawful restraints on trade. English courts will however enforce a restriction
In reference to a previous post, entitled “Limits on non-compete and non-solicitation clauses under German law” by Bettina Goletz, we have been asked about non-compete compensation payments in case of the employer’s insolvency. This post will address whether the employee is entitled to compensation payments under a post-contractual non-compete clause in the situation where the
Freedom of speech is considered to constitute a fundamental right for employees both outside and within an employer’s premises. However, generally speaking, the exercise of this right is not considered to be legitimate if it leads to abuse, such as excessive, insulting or defamatory statements.
Moreover, regardless of the existence of any abuse, French employment