Editor's message: Your organisation has information and knowledge that it considers vital to preserve its competitive edge in the market place. You can protect these business interests by using carefully-drafted restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses.
Your employees are also integral to the success of your organisation and an effective non-poaching covenant can restrict an ex-employee from poaching other members of your staff.
It is equally important to implement effective measures to prevent, monitor and eliminate bribery within your organisation.
Fiona Cuming, employment law editor
Updated to include information on Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd, in which the Court of Appeal considered the enforceability of a post-termination restraint clause.
Employers often use interim or "springboard" injunctions to protect confidential information after employees decide to leave. But they are not always straightforward, as two recent cases illustrate. Michael Bronstein, a partner at Dentons, and Olivia Iasonos, a trainee at Dentons, explain.
The High Court has held that two ex-employees breached their contracts of employment by misusing confidential information belonging to their former employer's business. However, the High Court found that the employer had not suffered any financial loss and that it was entitled to only nominal damages of £1 from each employee.
In Theedom v Nourish Trading Ltd (t/a CSP Recruitment) and another  IRLR 866 HC, the High Court dismissed an employee's libel claim in respect of emails sent by his employer about his misconduct.
The Government is considering a ban on restrictive covenants, but would this open the door to more poaching of staff?
In DLA Piper's latest case report, the High Court awarded damages of £30,000 and gave an injunction to a company after a former employee breached restrictive covenants by using a combination of customer contact details and information from purchase logs acquired during his employment to poach customers.
The High Court has held that an employer's email to its clients advising that a named employee had been dismissed for gross misconduct was not defamatory. The employer had a defence to libel because the statement was substantially true.
Beth Staniland is a trainee solicitor, and Emma Cousins, Ciara Jenkins, Iain Naylor and Lucy Sorell are associates at Addleshaw Goddard LLP. They round up the latest rulings.
The Government has launched a call for evidence seeking views on the impact of restrictive covenants (non-compete clauses) on business innovation.