Restrictive covenant in an undertaking
The employees’ contracts of employment with C contained restrictive covenants prohibiting them, for six months after the termination of their employment, from dealing with any existing customer of C, with which they had either business dealings or whose confidential or commercially sensitive information they had access to in the last six months of their employment.
During their employment, the employees worked on a credit card processing contract for C. In August 2013, C lost that contract to a competitor. The employees resigned from C on notice, joined the competitor, and resumed work on the same credit card processing contract.
In January 2014, C wrote to the employees asserting they were in breach of their restrictive covenants and asked for undertakings (written promises) from the employees to the effect that they would abide by their restrictive covenants, otherwise C would seek an injunction. After taking legal advice, the employees gave the undertakings so as to avoid the financial risk of legal proceedings…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Winckworth Sherwood briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Winckworth Sherwood
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Winckworth Sherwood
The EAT considered whether an employee who said she was too ill to resign for 18 months and who received 39 weeks’ sick pay during that period had affirmed her contract.
It is possible for employers to defend unfair dismissal claims arising from inappropriate use of social media even if the misconduct is not work-related.