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
  • 14 February 2025
  • Immigration

Bringing your Valentine to the UK

This year, thousands of couples have to spend Valentine’s day alone, due to the UK’s strict Immigration rules.

art
  • 14 February 2025
  • Employment

How to manage romance in the workplace

We spend most of our time at work, whether that be in the workplace or remotely via teams or slack. With all this time to chat and get to know colleagues, it comes as no surprise that romance has become commonplace in the modern workplace.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Public Procurement

Procurement Act 2023 – Coming into force on 24 February 2025

After a four-month delay from its original commencement date of 28 October 2024, the new Procurement Act 2023 is now due to come into force later this month on 24 February 2025.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Commercial Real Estate

What are restrictive covenants and how do they relate to the planning system?

Restrictive covenants on use can be one of the more problematic aspects of a property transaction. Even if the restrictive covenants do not affect one’s development plans for the land, they may be an issue for subsequent buyers or future lenders.

art
  • 13 February 2025
  • Immigration

Skilled Worker New Entrant Exemption – is it a good investment?

The “new entrant” exemption under the UK Skilled Worker Visa is a vital but often underappreciated element of the immigration system. It offers valuable benefits to both employers and employees.

art
  • 12 February 2025
  • Employment

Balancing the Equality Act: Lessons from Higgs v Farmor’s School

The Court of Appeal have today issued a judgment in the Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School case, in which it has ruled that the actions of the school in dismissing Ms Higgs for expressing LGBT+ critical posts on her personal Facebook account, was unlawful discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.