A post employment restrictive covenant was unreasonable where an employee was restricted even after the wrongful termination of his employment by the company. Laws J set out the appropriate principle: ‘A restrictive covenant, having effect after the termination of a contract of service or for services, which on its face applies to the employer’s benefit even where the termination has been induced by his own breach is necessarily unreasonable. Such a provision, if given effect, would constitute an evasion of the rule in General Billposting [1909] AC 118. Indeed, so far as I can see, the only purpose of inserting the material words (‘for whatever reason’ or ‘whether lawful or unlawful’ or however otherwise it might be expressed) would be to secure coercive rights to the employer which would survive his own contractual misconduct. I cannot think that that would be reasonable.’
Judges:
Laws J
Citations:
Times 18-Mar-1996, [1996] IRLR 192
Cited by:
Cited – Rock Refrigeration Limited v Jones and Seward Refrigeration Limited CA 10-Oct-1996
The claimant sought to enforce a post employment restrictive covenant given by the defendant. The defendant replied that the clause was too widely framed and was unreasonable since it applied to a temination of his contract ‘howsoever occasioned’. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79764
