Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
post termination restrictions (different types (Restrictions on clauses…
post termination restrictions
non-compete clause
legitimate restrain on work
protectible interest
no wider then necessary
Protectible Interest
customer connection
hold or connection with members of a customer base (regular contact not always sufficient)
Dosser v Monaghan
prohibited orchestra member - connection to orchestra as a group not individuals
White v Francis
highly skilled hairdresser could take customers with her - restrictive covenant could apply
Lantieri Beauty Salon v Yale
manicurist to junior an employee, customers not leaving because she left
trade secrets
stable workforce
No wider then reasonably necessary
Tillman v Egan
herbert Morris v Salexby
different types
non solicit
can't solicit customers of the business you were in during your time in the business
non compete
can't compete in same business
Office Angels v Rainer Thomas
restrictive covenant prevented engaging in Trade or business for all of london - excluded from market involving thousands of customers (contact with 10), covenant should have been narrower - limited to customers in contact with -
non-solicitation more favorably then non-compete
Restrictions on clauses
clause must only target customers who person had dealings with and a potential hold
office Angels
an only be for soliciting in the one market
Martin Tyler v Johnson
was construction workers, set up business in construction sector - non-compete - unenforceable
non compete allowed if customers likely to follow without being solicited
white v Francis
Wrongful Dismissal
Billposting v Anderson
not right to deprive employee of working for you and right to work for others
Billposting
been queried
Rock Refrigeration
paid compensation - Billposting still good law
Severance
only applies self contained clause capable of being removed, removal must not change character of the contract
Tillman v Egan
allows removal of unenforceable part of contract, if overall effect not changed majorly
Pusman v Taylor
3 parts, only Part A applicable, able to cut Part B and C
single Covenant Rule
Atwood
can;t severe if part of string of inclusions (one covenant)
Tillman v Egan
clause prevented directly, indirectly, interested in competing business - interested in was to wide(prevented acquisition of shares) Single Covenant Rule no longer justifiable- no sense that 1 part of a wide covenant could be removed, but part of a narrow covenant could be
where do you draw the line for single covenants