Skip to main content

Insight article

October 3, 2014

What are restrictive covenants?

This business briefing provides an overview of the law in this area. It explains what restrictive covenants are, when they are likely to be enforceable, and their use in employment contracts to protect a business’ interests. You should talk to a lawyer to understand how it may affect your particular circumstances.

What is a restrictive covenant, and when is it enforceable?

A business can use restrictive covenants (sometimes called “post termination restraints”) to protect its interests. A restrictive covenant restricts an employee’s activities for a period after their employment has ended.

A restrictive covenant will only be enforceable if it protects a legitimate business interest. Otherwise, the courts and tribunals will regard it as an unlawful restraint of trade. The only recognised business interests are:

  • trade connections (including the relationship between the business’s customers and its workforce); and
  • trade secrets and confidential information.

The restriction will be enforceable if the business has a legitimate business interest to protect. However, it must be no wider than is necessary to protect that interest. The covenant must be limited in terms of the restrictive activities themselves and also apply:

  • for a limited time; and
  • within a limited geographical area (if appropriate).

Draft restrictive covenants carefully

You must draft any restrictive covenants carefully so that they:

  • Accurately reflect each employee’s role.
  • Reflect on the circumstances of the business.
  • Go no further than is necessary.

The business should regularly review contracts with restrictive covenants and check whether they require updating (for example, if the employee’s role has changed).

There is little point in an employer seeking to impose blanket and uniform restrictive covenants on its entire workforce. In all likelihood, a court or tribunal would not consider them to be reasonable restrictions to impose on every employee—especially those who might have limited or no access to the employer’s customers and confidential information. For example, putting restrictive covenants in an employee handbook would be pointless. The better practice is to reserve restrictive covenants for those employees, in all likelihood the more senior ones, who will have access to the employer’s confidential information and trade secrets and a close working relationship with the employer’s customers and clients.

Consider carefully what periods of restraint might be appropriate and reasonable in the case of each individual employee. Whilst
restrictive covenants might be justified in the contracts of employees A and B, a longer period of restraint might be justified for B than for A if B holds a more senior position than A and/or has closer connections with customers than A and greater access to the employer’s confidential information and trade secrets.

Non-solicitation restrictive covenants

Customers

A business can include a covenant in an employee’s contract preventing them from soliciting customers after they have left the business. This type of covenant will be particularly useful if the employee has a strong relationship with certain customers.

Generally, the employer should restrict the covenant to customers with whom the employee had contact during a specified period before leaving. There are a number of factors the business should consider when trying to establish the length of this period, including:

  • the amount of time it would take for the employee’s successor to gain influence over the business contacts;
  • the employee’s seniority within the business;
  • the extent of the employee’s role in securing new business;
  • the loyalty (or otherwise) of customers in the particular market; and
  • the length of similar restrictions in the employment contracts of competitors.

Potential customers

A restrictive covenant that attempts to extend the restriction to potential customers will be harder to enforce. However, protecting an interest in genuine prospective customers may be possible if accurately defined.

Other employees

A restrictive covenant preventing a former employee from poaching your existing employees can be, in principle, enforceable, as the stability of the business’s workforce is a legitimate business interest. However, the employer should usually limit the restrictive covenant to those employees at the same level as the former employee and those more senior to them. Any clause that attempts to prohibit the poaching of employees will need to consider the following:

  • How long the former employee’s influence over the other employees will last?
  • The roles of the employees over whom the influence exists.

Non-dealing

A restriction on the solicitation of customers can be extended to cover not only enticement or interference (where the former employee takes active steps) but also the provision of services where no active steps are required (for example, where the customer approaches the former employee), known as a non-dealing covenant.

This type of covenant has a clear advantage as it avoids the need to prove that the former employee made an approach, which is
usually difficult to show. However, it broadens the prohibition and may make enforcing it more difficult.

The enforceability of a non-dealing covenant will depend on the interest the business is trying to protect (for example, enforcement may be more likely if the business can establish a substantial personal connection between the former employee and the business’s customers).

Non-competition

Employees cannot disclose confidential information amounting to a trade secret (for example, a manufacturing process) after they leave your business. A business can also include express confidentiality provisions in their employment contract to protect the information. Therefore, additional restrictive covenants may be considered unnecessary, and noncompetition restrictions, in particular, can be hard to enforce.

However, there are circumstances where a non-competition restriction is likely to be enforced. For example, where the former employee’s influence over customers or suppliers is so great that the only effective protection is to ensure they are not engaged in a competing business in any way.

Speak to Karen Cole today. She frequently acts for employers and employees in drafting, advising, and resolving disputes concerning restrictive covenants.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Supporting neurodiverse people in family law matters
    Understanding neurodiversity in the legal context.


    Read more
  • Supreme court ruling on referees’ employment status
    In PGMOL v HMRC, the Supreme Court considered whether professional referees were self-employed. The case has the potential for far-reaching implications across the employment world.


    Read more
  • Business First Magazine
    Read our expert insights on key workplace and corporate issues.


    Read more
  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more

What they say...

  • Ian, April 2025
    “Martin and his team at Barker Gillette acted for us in our purchase and sale of property. The chain was lengthy and elements of the work became complex. Martin was tenacious and resolved to answer our queries as they arose. He handled all aspe

  • Henry, April 2025
    “We have purchased flats before with 2 different solicitors who were unable to help us this time. Martin came highly recommended and are we glad. He was very professional in every way: knowledgeable, approachable, he has a friendly manner, very

  • Megan Purcell-Jones, April 2025
    “Charlotte was extremely diligent and thorough. She talked us through the process of making our wills and listened to and understood our needs and the complexities involved. Extremely patient and very clear.”

  • Hena, April 2025
    “Great experience, Patrick was very clear and gave time to explain the legal processes. Friendly and professional communication made me feel comfortable asking questions, received great legal advice.”

  • Michael Constable, April 2025
    “I wanted to revise my will and appoint RIAA Barker Gillette as my Executor and Trustees. This was handled very efficiently and professionally. It helped that I had agreed a fixed fee in advance.” Review left for: Herman Cheung

Read more
Send this to a friend