The Business > Resources > OnHand Counsel's The Business: Legal Briefing July 2017
OnHand Counsel's The Business: Legal Briefing July 2017

 


View this email in your browser
Dear

In this series of legal briefings I update you about recent developments in corporate or commercial law. Some of these briefings will hopefully resonate with some of you some of the time. I explain some of the context and background law, and perhaps give some specific tips. And maybe ramble or even rant a bit.

If you have any questions about anything raised in any of my legal briefings please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Form over substance: a case about what I think is quite a silly way for the law to treat restrictive covenants

(Rating system:
Reading time (1-10 minutes): 3
Sophistication level (1 (idiot) – 10 (expert)): 6
Entertainment value (1 (turgid) – 10 (side-splitting)): 4)

Background:

If you are entering into a business deal with someone, whether they are selling their business to you as part of which you are expecting to take over their customers, or providing services to you as part of which they could get to know your customers, you might well want to add a ‘restraint of trade’ or ‘restrictive covenant’ clause to your contract saying that after your business deal has ended they must not try to steal your customers or compete with your business. There is a whole lot of law about whether such clauses will be enforceable or not. In very brief, the law says that a clause that goes beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect a party’s legitimate business interests is illegal and unenforceable.

The law is, in principle, the same for all contracts, whether business sales or employment contracts. However, courts are naturally much tougher on restrictive covenants in employment contracts. After all, an employee generally needs to keep working, whereas in a business sale the seller will have been paid for selling the ‘goodwill’ in the business to the customer.

As a rule, you have to judge whether a restraint of trade clause is fair by the circumstances that exist at the time a contract is entered into. This makes things difficult for ongoing contracts such as employment or other services contracts which might not come to an end for years after they were signed. The law has also developed in such a way that courts look closely at the wording of the restraint of trade clause as it was written, and if it in any way offends then then the whole clause will usually be held to be unenforceable unless the court is prepared to allow certain rules of interpretation to be applied which occasionally let you strike out some unacceptable words whilst letting the overall clause remain.

Over the years, it has become industry practice for most non-compete clauses to come with a standard carve-out proviso saying that the restrictions won’t apply to prevent the person owning a small number of shares in a quoted company which might just happen to include a competing business.

Recent case:

In this case, a large executive search company (‘EZ’) took on a very senior lady (Ms Tillman’) to work in its financial services group. She eventually became head of the whole group, which represented about a quarter of the whole company business.

Her contract had industry standard restraint of trade wording saying that ‘you shall not…either alone or jointly with or on behalf of any third party and whether as principal, manager, employee, contractor, consultant, agent or otherwise howsoever at any time within the period of six months from the Termination Date…directly or indirectly engage or be concerned or interested in any business carried on in competition with any of the business of the Company…which were carried on at the Termination Date or during the period of twelve months prior to that date and with which you were materially concerned during such period.’ But the clause didn't have an industry standard carve-out allowing her to hold a small shareholding in a quoted company for investment purposes.

After 3 years’ employment she resigned and said she was going to work for a direct competitor. On the face of it, a blatant breach of what the restraint of trade clause was designed to protect against.

Ms Tillman argued that the whole clause should be ruled to be void because (even though it was irrelevant to what she was actually planning to do) the restriction on being ‘interested’ in a competing business could have prevented her having a tiny shareholding purely for investment purposes in a quoted company which just happened to be a competitor, which would have been unreasonable.

What did the court say?

The High Court judge upheld the clause and granted an injunction stopping her from going to the competitor. But Ms Tillman appealed and the Court of Appeal upheld her appeal and said that the whole clause was void.

Comments and advice:

Generally UK law has been moving in the last few decades in the direction that courts will not look to overturn provisions in contracts (such as exclusion clauses) which have been agreed and set out between businesses, and will try to interpret what parties were trying to set out in their commercial contracts by using commercial common sense rather than pedantically focussing on the language used. But the world of restraint of trade clauses seems to be a bit of an exception. Unless you are a specialist lawyer how can you be expected to know that you have to follow these rules about how you must draft such clauses?!

This case involved an employment contract, albeit an unusual one with a high-powered employee. But presumably the rule would apply just as much in a business sale context. So, don’t forget to include these kinds of ‘industry practice’ carve-outs if you are buying a business or company and want to tie in the sellers.

For any contracts (business sale or services), be very cautious about the restrictions you ask for. If in doubt, water them down.

Whenever you promote an employee, think about agreeing to strengthen their restrictive covenants, as their new seniority may justify tougher restrictions. EZ didn’t do that in this case.

Bonus comment: think about who’s entering into restrictive covenants. If you’re buying a business from a company, don’t just ask for the seller company to give restrictive covenants! This wouldn’t stop the individual owners of the seller company from going off and setting up competing businesses, soliciting customers etc! Consider insisting that the individual owners also enter into the agreement so they can give restrictive covenants personally!

Case: Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd (2017 Court of Appeal)

Please remember my two SPECIAL OFFERS:

Special offer #1:

If you get any scoped quote from any traditional full-service law firm’s company commercial department for any work within my areas of expertise, I will 1/ match it; 2/ knock at least 15% off it; and 3/ provide the service with a more experienced level of expertise and service. This is not a one-off offer; it is a permanent offer. It’s just the way it is.

Special offer #2:

Free introductory meeting.

This isn't really a special offer either. I’ve always offered it. If you are a new potential client, I am always happy to meet you so we can introduce each other, learn more about each other and decide if we want to work with each other.
All the best,
Andrew James
OnHand Counsel Limited
This newsletter is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice (even if it looks like it does) and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness (I’m not sure what the difference is but that’s what my precedent says) of the information and commentary set out here, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by OnHand Counsel Limited or by any solicitor, employee or agent of OnHand Counsel Limited, ie particularly me. You have not paid me to provide it to you and I do not owe you any duty of care whatsoever so why should I be liable to you if you go away and do something wrong relying on what I have said in it. If you want to do something and want to rely on my advice, give me some money! Thank you for reading this far.
If you wish to unsubscribe from The Business or any other emails from OnHand Counsel Limited, informative or otherwise, please do so by clicking on the subscription options below.
Got an important or complicated deal coming up in your business? Know someone who does? CONTACT ANDREW
WHY INSTRUCT ONHAND COUNSEL?

Experienced, effective and approachable

Value for money

Just look at all the things Andrew James can help with!

If Andrew can’t help personally he will know an AIBL lawyer or someone else who can
Copyright © 2017 OnHand Counsel Limited, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email as a valued client or contact

Our mailing address is:
OnHand Counsel Limited
114A Old London Rd
St Albans, Hertfordshire AL1 1PU
United Kingdom

Add us to your address book


unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

 

 
 
Banner
Andrew James