Fri07282017

Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS: The employer strikes back

05 September 2014  

David von Hagen and Louise Lawrence of Winckworth Sherwood discuss recent decisions on restrictive covenants and their implications

A series of recent High Court decisions about the interpretation and enforceability of restrictive covenants and garden leave has been distinctly pro-employer, with a clear trend towards holding employees to such covenants, including restrictions of a long duration. One of these cases, Prophet plc v Huggett [2014], has now been overturned by the Court of Appeal but this was because the covenant contained a drafting error, not because the 12-month restriction was held to be too long.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Capgemini India Private Ltd & anor v Krishnan & ors [2014] EWHC 1092 (QB)

    JM Finn & Co Ltd v Holliday [2013] EWHC 3450 (QB)

    Patsystems Holdings Ltd v Neilly [2012] EWHC 2609 (QB)

    Prophet plc v Huggett [2014] EWHC 615 (Ch) and EWCA Civ 1013

    Tullett Prebon plc & ors v BGC Brokers LP & ors [2010] EWHC 484 QB

    Warm Zones v Thurley & anor [2014] EWHC 988 (QB)