3. Employment & Compensation
  5. United Kingdom: Government proposals to limit enforceability of non-compete clauses

United Kingdom: Government proposals to limit enforceability of non-compete clauses

09 Jun 2023    1 minute read
EC Featured Content

In brief

Non-compete clauses have become a common feature in employment contracts; they aim to protect employers by preventing departing employees from joining rival companies or starting their own competitive ventures for a specific period. The UK government, however, has announced it intends to limit the enforceability of non-competition clauses in contracts of employment and worker contracts in the UK to a maximum of three months.

In a briefing published by Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence, Anne-Marie Davies discusses the effect of such a change. 

Contents

Key takeways

  • Critics argue that non-compete clauses can be unfair to employees and unduly restrict their professional development, and can be bad for the wider economy by limiting competition and innovation. The UK government opened a consultation in 2020 to explore measures to strike a better balance between protecting employers' interests and ensuring fair competition and employee mobility. That consultation offered two broad options: to require payment for non-compete clauses, or to ban such restrictions. Ultimately, the government decided against both options in favour of a three-month limit on the duration of such clauses.
  • The limit would apply only to non-compete clauses in employment contracts. Other contracts, or forms of post-termination restriction, would be unaffected.
  • The government has said legislation will be introduced when time allows. It is possible this will not be before the next general election. However, employers should consider how they would be impacted, which will include a review of how far non-competes are used within their business at present.
  • Aside from garden leave clauses, it would be advisable for employers to consider what other protections they have agreed, or can agree, with their employees. Other post-termination restraints such as non-solicitation and non-dealing clauses may still be used to protect trade secrets, confidential information, and client relationships. It would therefore be sensible for employers to ensure that they include a full suite of well-drafted post-employment protections in their employment contracts.
  • The proposed restrictions may also see a greater focus on whether departing employees have breached confidentiality obligations or other express or implied contractual obligations such as the obligations of fidelity and trust and confidence and an increased use of springboard injunctions.

This briefing was first published by Thomson Reuter's Regulatory Intelligence. 

Click here to access the full article.

Contact Information
Paul Harrison
Of Counsel
London
Read my Bio
paul.harrison@bakermckenzie.com
Rachel Farr
Senior Knowledge Lawyer
London
rachel.farr@bakermckenzie.com

Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.

HighQ
Copyright Baker McKenzie 2024 | Disclaimers | Supplemental Privacy Statement