Determining whether restrictions are enforceable

This Overview outlines the Practice Notes available in our subtopic: 'Determining whether restrictions are enforceable'.

The combined effect of the implied duty of fidelity, any fiduciary duties owed by the employee and express restrictions on competition (such as garden leave clauses) and on the use of confidential information during employment contained in the contract of employment can protect the employer against competition while the employee is employed. Post-termination restrictions (also known as restrictive covenants) can provide effective protection to an employer against competition by a former employee.

However, the protection that such provisions afford will depend on the extent to which the relevant restrictions are judged by a court to be enforceable.

Usually, the enforceability of the relevant restrictions will be judged by a court at an interim hearing of an application by the employer for an interim injunction to enforce the restriction concerned.

The Practice Notes in this subtopic examine the enforceability of post-termination restrictions against employees. The principles applicable to the enforceability of post-termination restrictions against other individuals in commercial agreements (eg partners, consultants, shareholders) are similar but not the same and outside

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Employment News

DBT updates Codes of Practice on industrial action ballots and notice to employers and picketing

The Department of Business and Trade (DBT) has published updated versions of the Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers and the Code of Practice on Picketing. The revisions reflect changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA 2025), which came into force on 18 February 2026. These changes include the removal of provisions on picketing supervision, the abolition of the 50% turnout threshold for ballots and amendments to the notice requirements for industrial action ballots.

Office for Equality and Opportunity publishes equality action plan guidance and recommended actions

The Office for Equality and Opportunity has published guidance on equality action plans as well as a list of evidence-informed actions across various business objectives which may be included in the action plans. The Employment Rights Act 2025 introduces a new requirement on larger employers (250 or more employees, or public authorities) to publish an equality action plan alongside their gender pay gap data showing the steps adopted with regard to matters related to gender equality in their workforce. The requirement is set to be introduced on a voluntary basis from 6 April 2026 but will become mandatory from spring 2027. The guidance and the list of actions are designed to assist those employers who wish to implement the action plans in getting started.

Employment weekly highlights—5 March 2026

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) consultations on protection from detriments for taking industrial action and the threshold for triggering collective redundancy obligations, (2) a response to the government’s consultation on unpaid internships, (3) an EAT case examining the respective weight to be given to individual and group disadvantage in indirect discrimination claims, (4) an EAT decision setting out guidance for employment judges dealing with reconsideration applications, (5) an EAT decision to grant a restriction of proceedings order against a vexatious litigant with over 50 claims, (6) a new Practice Note on bereaved partner’s paternity leave (BPPL), a new Precedent Solicitor apprenticeship agreement and an update to our paternity leave policy in relation to BPPL, (7) upcoming dates for your diary, and (8) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

Data by any other name—Court of Appeal reverses Upper Tribunal’s ruling on the protection of ‘personal data’ (DSG v ICO)

Information Law analysis: In this case, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal brought by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), holding that it is sufficient that data which has been subjected to unauthorised or unlawful processing by a third party still constitutes personal data from the perspective of the data controller, even if it is pseudonymised ‘in the hands of’ the data controller and therefore anonymised ‘in the hands of’ the attacker. Accordingly, the court held, the data controller is required to take ‘appropriate technical and organisational measures’ (ATOMs) to protect that personal data against such hackers, even where those third parties cannot themselves identify the individuals to whom the data relates. Even though this judgment is under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998), this decision is significant as it confirms, in terms equally applicable to the United Kingdom General Data Protection Regulation, Assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (UK GDPR), that the scope of the security obligation is not diminished merely because stolen or exfiltrated data would be anonymised in the hands of the third party with unlawful access. This development expands and makes more pressing the obligation on controllers to assess and guard against a broader range of threats—including ransomware, data destruction, and bulk exfiltration, regardless of the attacker's capacity to re-identify data subjects. Written by Adelaide Lopez, senior associate at Wiggin LLP.