-
- Date:
- 19 November 2019
- Type:
- Law reports
In Ward v Fiducia Comprehensive Financial Planning Ltd, an employment tribunal upheld a claim for constructive unfair dismissal, finding that the employer had put inappropriate and excessive pressure on the employee to agree to an extended restrictive covenant following his resignation.
-
- Type:
- Employment law manual
Updated to include information on Hallett v Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, concerning a junior doctor's terms and conditions on the monitoring of rest breaks.
-
- Type:
- How to
Updated to reflect changes to the rules on interpreting restrictive covenants outlined by the Supreme Court in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd.
-
- Type:
- FAQs
-
- Date:
- 4 July 2019
- Type:
- Law reports
In Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held that a six-month non-compete clause was enforceable because the unenforceable part of the clause was capable of being severed.
-
- Type:
- Consultations
Updated to include a reference to the Government's response to the consultation.
-
- Date:
- 28 January 2019
- Type:
- Legal guidance
Businesses, particularly in the finance, technology, pharma, IT and manufacturing sectors use non-compete provisions to protect against potentially unfair competition by their employees. But one case being considered in the Supreme Court, could force their approach to change, writes lawyer Michael McCartney.
-
- Date:
- 23 January 2019
- Type:
- News
Employers are being warned about the wording of restrictive covenants in employment contracts as a landmark case is heard this week at the Supreme Court.
-
- Date:
- 8 February 2018
- Type:
- Law reports
In Tillman v Egon Zehnder, the Court of Appeal held that a six-month non-compete clause that prevented the employee from being "concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition" after termination of employment was unenforceable as it would bar her from being a shareholder in a competing business.
-
- Date:
- 6 March 2017
- Type:
- Law reports
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.
