Search

How can we help?

Business Employment

Restricted covenants & team moves

 

Our employment lawyers understand that protecting your assets such as confidential information and trade secrets is a priority and fundamental to your company’s success. We have extensive experience advising employers in situations involving restrictive covenants, team moves and injunctions.

The departure of a valued employee or team often raises sensitive and complex legal issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Our team can help you protect these assets from the outset by drafting reasonable, workable intellectual property rights clauses, confidentiality clauses and post termination restrictive covenants into your employee’s contract of employment.

Where such clauses are breached our lawyers are on hand to advise you on the most appropriate course of action you can take to remedy the situation; be that an injunction, mediation or legal proceedings and if the matter does proceed to court, the recovery of damages against the offending employees.

We also advise employers who are recruiting a team from a competitor as well as those who are seeking protection and/or damages in the Courts where a team has moved to a competitor.

An exceptional balance of expertise and personality.”

Legal 500

FAQs- Restricted Covenants and Team moves

This is a type of clause in a contract which seeks to restrict a party from acting in a certain way.  In employment contracts, they are often used to seek to prohibit an employee from doing something after they have left employment, such as soliciting customers and employees or working in a competing business.

The most common types in an employment context are:

  • Non-solicitation clauses – seeking to prevent an ex-employee from contacting certain customers and employees
  • Non-employment clauses – seeking to prevent an ex-employee from offering employment to certain employees even if they do not solicit the contact initially
  • Non-dealing clauses – seeking to prevent an ex-employee from dealing at all with certain customers even if they do not solicit the contact initially
  • Non-compete clauses – seeking to restrict an ex-employee from working for a rival

Yes.  They must go no further than is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate business interests but provided they meet the legal tests associated with this they are legally enforceable.

Contact our specialist team at Clarkslegal and we can talk you through your options and help guide you through the process.

They may face legal action from the employer. This could include a claim to recover any loss the employer has suffered as a result of their actions and/or an injunction to prevent the employee from continuing to act in breach.

Key contacts

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 24 November 2017
  • Employment

Failing to evidence right to work is not an excuse to dismiss an employee

In Baker v Abellio London Ltd, the EAT overturned the ET’s original finding of a fair dismissal for illegality. The ET had accepted that a Jamaican national with the right to live and work in the UK was fairly dismissed after his employer had suspended, and eventually dismissed him, after failing to provide documentary evidence of his right to work.

art
  • 24 November 2017
  • Employment

Union bids for recognition with end user not employer

This week a trade union, IWGB, has applied for statutory recognition to represent a group of receptionists, security officers and porters who work at the University of London even though these workers are employed by Cordant Security, a facilities management company with the contract to provide services to the University.

art
  • 17 November 2017
  • Employment

Pension scheme did not discriminate workers

In Dr Parker v MDU Services Ltd, the claimant alleged that her employer’s pension scheme indirectly discriminated against workers who had a combination of full and part-time service.

art
  • 17 November 2017
  • Employment

Deliveroo: Late substitution leads to a win against the run of play

The Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) has finally given its decision on whether a particular group of Deliveroo riders – those in the Camden/Kentish Town area of North London who are paid per delivery – are workers of Deliveroo or are independent suppliers of services to Deliveroo.

art
  • 13 November 2017
  • Employment

Will Uber work in the area again?

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has today upheld the ET decision that when the Uber drivers were in the work area, available for work and with Uber app switched on, they were workers with rights to national minimum wage, sick pay and holiday pay.

art
  • 13 November 2017
  • Employment

Michael Sippitt comments on Uber losing UK legal appeal against drivers’ rights

Taxi-hailing firm Uber has lost its appeal on Friday (10 November) against a ruling that its drivers should be classed as workers rather than self-employed.

Clarkslegal’s innovative approach to solving complex cases is consistent; their quality standards are extremely high and their staff are efficient and friendly – overall 11/10!”

Carrol Douglas-Welsh, Head of Employee Relations – Scottish and Southern Energy