Restrictive Covenants Solicitor London Enforceability Advice
A restrictive covenant can restrict where you work, who you contact, and whether you can take colleagues with you after you leave. Whether it would actually be enforceable is often a very different question. Getting that answer before you act is what protects your next move.
of employment law
personally advised
top-ranked lawyer
from clients
BEFORE YOU TURN DOWN THAT JOB OFFER…
Not Every Restrictive Covenant Is Enforceable
A restrictive covenant is treated by English courts as a restraint of trade. That means it is unenforceable unless your employer can show it protects a legitimate business interest, and goes no further than reasonably necessary to protect that interest. Many covenants are drafted too widely, run for too long, or cover activities that have little to do with what you actually did.
Recent High Court decisions have made this increasingly clear. Where a covenant is too long, covers too wide a geography, or restricts activities beyond what the employee actually did, courts will refuse to enforce it. An employer cannot ask a court to rewrite a bad restriction into an acceptable one. If it fails the reasonableness test, it falls away entirely.
In practice, advice before you act is the most valuable thing. David assesses the real enforceability risk, tells you plainly where you stand, and gives you a strategy for your next move based on the law, not your employer’s threats.
36 years advising senior executives on their next move.
Restrictive covenants usually become urgent at the point of a career decision: a new role, a new business, an exit already in motion. David Greenhalgh has spent 36 years advising senior executives at exactly that moment, whether they are trying to understand what their contract actually allows, responding to a letter from a former employer, or negotiating a clean exit that relaxes the restrictions they would otherwise carry with them.
He gives a straight answer on enforceability from the first conversation, and a clear view on how to move forward. That may mean taking the new role, negotiating a release, or defending a threatened injunction.
The question is rarely whether a restrictive covenant exists. It is whether it would actually be enforceable if it came to it. That is often a very different answer, and it is the one that matters.
The restrictions David most often challenges.
Non-compete clauses challenged
Where a clause prevents you working for a competitor or setting up in competition, David assesses whether it is reasonable in scope, duration and geography. Overbroad clauses covering entire industries, or running longer than necessary, are frequently vulnerable.
Non-solicitation clauses reviewed
Clauses preventing you from approaching former clients are only enforceable where you had a real relationship with those clients and the restriction is no wider than necessary. A blanket ban on all client contact is routinely open to challenge.
Non-dealing provisions assessed
Some contracts go further than stopping you from approaching clients. They try to stop you dealing with them at all, even where the client contacts you first. These clauses carry a higher bar and are often drafted too broadly to be enforceable.
Non-poaching and team-move restrictions
Restrictions on taking former colleagues with you are enforceable in narrower circumstances than employers often suggest. David identifies where these clauses are vulnerable and how much risk they really create.
Garden leave negotiated
Where a long garden leave period overlaps with post-termination restrictions, there is often an argument that both should not run consecutively. David uses that point to reduce the effective restriction period where possible.
Releases and waivers negotiated
Where employment is ending, David negotiates directly with the employer to relax or remove restrictions as part of the exit terms, so you can move on without the threat hanging over you.
Injunction threats defended
If a former employer threatens an emergency injunction to stop you working, David responds quickly. The threat of an injunction is often used as leverage. The real question is whether the employer has the evidence, appetite and legal basis to follow through.
Covenants reviewed before you sign
The best time to take advice is before you accept a contract, not after you want to leave. David reviews restriction clauses at the contract stage so you know exactly what you are signing.
Restrictive Covenant Matters David Has Resolved
Case studies are anonymised. Past outcomes are not a guarantee of future results.
Send David your details for a same-day response.
Tell David what has happened and he will come back to you with a clear view of your position. Everything you share is confidential, and your current or former employer will not be notified.
No obligation. Your details are used only to respond to your enquiry.
Speak to David's team directly.
Completing the contact form is the fastest way to get support. Alternatively, you can reach us by phone:
020 3603 2177- Confidential same-day review of your covenants and your position
- David will confirm the fee position with you before you proceed.
From First Call to Resolution
Initial call
David reviews your situation: the role you want to take, the restrictions in your contract, and any contact from your former employer.
Response within hoursEnforceability assessment
David reviews your contract and gives a clear written view on whether the restrictions are likely to be enforceable, and the realistic risk of your employer pursuing them.
Same day to 48 hoursStrategy and action
Proceeding with your move, opening negotiations with your former employer, or responding to a legal threat.
DaysResolution
A clean exit with restrictions released, a confirmed position on enforceability, or a successfully defended injunction threat.
ResolvedWhat Clients Say About Working With David
I was already happy with the settlement agreement terms I had been offered but only had limited time to accept. David provided a fast turnaround service which enabled me to get same-day advice and sign off.
The invaluable advice I got from David on my settlement agreement helped me feel in control. He negotiated me a far better deal than was offered to me originally.
David held my hand throughout a very messy exit and with his help I left with a large pay out under my settlement agreement to see me through to my next role.
David was great on tactics. He helped me prepare for my redundancy consultation meeting which resulted in me being offered a decent settlement agreement exit package.
Restrictive covenants, answered.
The questions David is asked most often before clients pick up the phone.
View full FAQ →Yes, but only if they meet two tests. First, the restriction must protect a legitimate business interest, such as confidential information, client relationships or workforce stability. Second, it must go no further than reasonably necessary to protect that interest. The activity restricted, the duration and, where relevant, the geography all need to be proportionate. Courts will not rescue an overly broad clause simply because an employer wants it to work. Many covenants, particularly those drafted uniformly across a workforce or running longer than necessary for the role, are vulnerable.
The most common are non-compete clauses, which prevent you working for a competitor or setting up in competition; non-solicitation clauses, which prevent you approaching former clients; non-dealing clauses, which go further and prevent you dealing with former clients even where they contact you first; and non-poaching clauses, which restrict you from taking colleagues with you. Confidentiality obligations are separate and usually survive termination regardless of the other restrictions. These clauses can appear in your main contract, a separate deed, or tucked into share scheme or long-term incentive plan documents, so it is worth checking everything before assuming you know what applies.
Your former employer may threaten legal action, seek an injunction to stop you continuing in your new role, or claim financial losses they say were caused by the breach. In practice, whether they follow through depends heavily on whether the covenant is actually enforceable, the commercial value of what they are trying to protect, and their appetite for the cost and disruption of litigation. Many threats are made but not pursued. The worst thing you can do is ignore a letter or assume it will go away. Taking advice before you act, or immediately after receiving correspondence, puts you in a much stronger position.
A former employer can apply to the High Court for an interim injunction to prevent you starting or continuing in a new role. These applications are urgent, expensive and decided quickly, often within days. Courts will only grant them where the employer has a strong arguable case and the balance of convenience favours stopping you while the dispute is resolved. In practice, an injunction threat is often used as leverage rather than a genuine intention to litigate all the way through. David responds quickly to these situations and will tell you how seriously to take the threat.
Yes, and this is often the cleanest outcome. Where your employment is ending, whether through redundancy, a managed exit or a settlement agreement, David can negotiate a release or relaxation of the restrictions as part of the exit terms. An employer that wants a clean resolution will often agree to modify or remove restrictions in return for an agreed departure. The earlier you raise it, the more leverage you usually have.
Possibly, but not yet. The government published a working paper in November 2025 setting out five options for reform, including a statutory cap on duration and an outright ban on non-competes, and the consultation closed in February 2026. No decision has been announced and no legislation has been introduced. The current position under English law remains unchanged: non-compete clauses are enforceable only where they are reasonable and no wider than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. If reform is introduced, it is likely to focus on non-competes specifically rather than the full range of post-termination restrictions, although the government has indicated it may look at other covenants too. David will update clients as the position develops.