Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. August 2019
  6. Supreme Court revises restrictive covenant test

Supreme Court revises restrictive covenant test

Employment briefing: the long-established test for determining the severability of words in a restrictive covenant has been overruled and replaced by the UK Supreme Court
19th August 2019 | Claire McKee

In my summary of the hot employment law topics for the year (Journal, February 2019, 29), I mentioned that the case of Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd was heading to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal having found a six-month non-compete restrictive covenant to be invalid. The Supreme Court has now handed down this much-anticipated ruling. The main issue before the court was whether words could be severed from a post-termination restrictive covenant in order to render it enforceable and not invalid as an unreasonable restraint of trade. 

Protecting business interests 

Mary-Caroline Tillman was employed as Joint Global Head of the Financial Services Practice Group by Egon Zehnder Ltd, a specialist executive search and recruitment business. 

In accordance with her employment contract, she was bound by various restrictive covenants, including the non-compete which stated that, for six months following the termination of her employment, she could not “directly or indirectly engage or be concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition with any of the businesses of the Company or any Group Company”. Unusually, there was no exception for small shareholdings.

In January 2017, Tillman resigned and her employment came to an end on 30 January. She informed the company that she intended to work for a competitor from 1 May 2017, i.e. before the non-compete would expire on 30 July 2017. Tillman said she would comply with all her restrictions except the non-compete, which she said was too wide to be enforceable. The company sought an injunction to prevent her from breaching the non-compete and this was granted by the High Court. Tillman appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the words “interested in” effectively prevented her from holding even a minority shareholding in a competing business and went beyond protecting the company’s business interests, rendering the clause unenforceable. She was successful and the company appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the words “interested in” did prevent Ms Tillman from holding even a minor shareholding in a competitor and therefore did go further than necessary to protect the company’s business interests. Accordingly, they were not enforceable. However, the court went on to say that these words could be severed from the restriction, enabling the company to enforce the rest of it.

Three-pronged test

The Supreme Court overruled the longstanding decision in Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 751 which had held that, to sever words from a restriction, they had to be independent and merely technical or trivial. Instead, the court relied on the three-pronged test in Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd v Hall [2007] EWCA Civ 613:

The unenforceable provision must be capable of removal without adding to or amending the remaining wording (the blue pencil test). Here, the words “or interested” were capable of being removed from the non-compete without the need to add to or amend the wording of the rest of the restriction.

The remaining terms must continue to be supported by adequate consideration. This would not usually be an issue where the individual had recently been employed under the contract.

The removal of the provision must not change the character of the contract in such a way that it becomes “not the sort of contract that the parties entered at all”. This will always be for the employer to establish. In this case the removal of the prohibition on Tillman being “interested” did not generate a major change to the restraints.

The tests were therefore met and whilst the contractual period of the restraints had long expired, the Supreme Court ordered that the injunction be restored and the words “or interested” be deleted from the non-compete.

Whilst this decision will clearly be reassuring to employer clients, it should not be taken as a carte blanche to include unnecessarily restrictive wording in post-termination restraints.

When drafting restrictive covenants, it is essential to draft them carefully, taking into account the role and seniority of the employee who will be bound by them and the extent to which the employer actually needs protection. Where there is a less restrictive way of protecting the company’s business interests, that option should be adopted.

Interdict proceedings are notoriously expensive and going through them may be a bitter pill for a client to swallow to protect their business interests for the relatively short span of a usual restriction.

 

The Author

Claire McKee, associate, Dentons UK & Middle East LLP
Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • Reading for pleasure - Aug19
  • Opinion: Tahseen Jafry
  • Book reviews - Aug 19
  • Profile: Nicola Johnstone
  • President's column - Aug 19
  • Lawyer for our rulers
  • Ask Ash - Aug 19

Features

  • Of practices and people
  • The kids are alright?
  • ACEs high or low
  • First lady of the law
  • Making ADR mainstream

Briefings

  • Short sentences to PASS away?
  • Supreme Court revises restrictive covenant test
  • Needing a top-up?
  • Group chat privacy
  • Equality: where there's a right…
  • SSDT - Aug '19
  • Reforming the law of standard securities

In practice

  • QLTR cash balance form revised
  • Sign up for 2019 legal walks!
  • Public policy highlights - Aug 19
  • FairBnB?
  • Society-Faculty training day
  • SETS upgrade – an update
  • SPA update
  • Master Policy renewal

In this issue

  • The Judicial Disappointments Board
  • Hiding in plain sight
  • Food for thought on the drug front
  • Salmon farming law must change
  • People on the move - Aug 19
  • Managing compliance to drive legal practice success
  • New practice area: financial services – asset management
  • Resilience: your flexible friend
  • Appreciation: William Denys Cathcart Andrews

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited