Search

How can we help?

Icon

Payments to ex-employee during restrictive covenant period made no difference to enforceability

The recent case of Bartholomews Agri Food v Thornton has provided some useful guidance to employers who wish to rely on restrictive covenants when an employee leaves. Restrictive covenants (for example that prevent an employee from dealing with the employer’s clients, poaching clients or staff of the employer or working for a competitor) can be difficult to enforce, as highlighted in this case.

Mr Thornton had worked for his employer, an agricultural merchant, since he started as a trainee in 1997. His employment contract contained a restrictive covenant that prevented him from engaging in “work, supplying goods or services of a similar nature which compete with the company to the company’s customers, with a trade competitor within the company’s trading area… or on [his] own account without prior approval from the company” for six months after the termination of his employment. Unusually, it also provided that the company would pay him in full during those six months.

Mr Thornton resigned to work for a competitor and the company tried to enforce the restrictive covenant by seeking an interim injunction at the High Court.

To enforce the restriction the company had to show that it had legitimate business interests which required protection and that the restrictive covenant was no wider than was reasonably necessary to protect these interests. The High Court held that the restriction was not enforceable for the following reasons:

  • Restrictive covenants are assessed at the time they are entered into.  At the time the contract was entered into (18 years previously) the employee had been a trainee with no customer contacts, so the restriction was not protecting a legitimate interest. The employee was later promoted to a role where the restriction could have been justified, however, he did not re-enter the restrictive covenant at this point and so it could not be assessed from this stage.
Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

The High Court held that the restriction was not enforceable.

  • The restriction was far wider than was reasonably necessary as it applied to all customers of the company and its associated companies, regardless of whether the employee had had any relationship with them. The employee was only responsible for just over 1% of the company’s turnover and did not deal with 98% of the customers.
  • It made no difference that the company was prepared to continue paying the employee during the period of restriction –  permitting an employer to effectively purchase a restraint of trade is contrary to public policy.

This case reinforces the importance of giving careful thought to the drafting of restrictive covenants and makes clear that making payments during the period covered by the restrictive covenant will not impact enforceability.  In this case, had the employer issued a new contract to the employee on promotion with a restriction that only prevented him from dealing with customers that he had prior dealings with then it may well have been enforceable.

About this article

Disclaimer

This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Monica Atwal

Managing Partner

View profile

+44 118 960 4605

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 06 August 2025
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Product liability reform: New Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025

The law on product safety is set to undergo reform as the new Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 was passed in July.

art
  • 04 August 2025
  • Immigration

The UK Global Talent Visa: Unlocking Opportunities for the World’s Brightest Minds

The Global Talent visa is a prestigious UK immigration route designed to attract exceptional individuals who have demonstrated – or have the potential to demonstrate – significant achievements in science, research, engineering, arts and culture, or digital technology.

art
  • 29 July 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

Right to Renew: The Law Commission’s Statement

Many commercial tenants occupy their premises under tenancies. Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “Act”) gives these business tenants the right to remain in their premises when their tenancies would have otherwise come to an end, this is known as a “right to renew” or “security of tenure”.

art
  • 29 July 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Articles of Association v. Shareholders Agreement in England and Wales: Which one works best for you and your company?

The decision of whether to solely rely on a company’s Articles of Association or implement a bespoke Shareholders’ Agreement depends on the specific needs and priorities of the individual shareholders and the company alike.

Pub
  • 28 July 2025
  • Employment

Talking Employment Law: The Employment Rights Bill – Part 3

In part three of the Employment Rights Bill podcast series, Louise Keenan and Lucy White, members of the employment team, will discuss changes to fire and re-hire practices, harassment, zero-hour contracts and tribunal limitation periods.

art
  • 24 July 2025
  • Corporate and M&A

Deal Announcement: Clarkslegal’s corporate lawyers advise on the sale of Just Construction Recruitment Ltd to ASAP TT SAS

Clarkslegal’s corporate team is pleased to have advised the shareholders of Just Construction Recruitment Ltd on the sale of the company to French based, ASAP TT SAS.