UK: Employment Legal Update: Tactics for Team Moves

Last Updated: 13 May 2010
Article by Nicholas Robertson, Bernadette Daley and Christopher Fisher

Originally published May 13, 2010

Keywords: Tullett Prebon, BGC Brokers, constructive dismissal, conspiracy, breach of contract, no poaching injunction

Now that the dust has settled on the keenly awaited judgment in Tullett Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers LP this update focuses on key points from the decision and lessons to be learned. In the wake of this case, prospective employers may take a more cautious approach when carrying out a 'raiding' exercise on a competitor. At the end of the alert, we have included recommendations for 'poachers and gamekeepers' involved in team moves.


The case may be well-known to readers as it has attracted fairly extensive media coverage. The case is a complex one, involving a number of issues, so we have focussed in this update on the issues most likely to be of interest to readers.


The main parties, BGC Brokers LP (BGC) and Tullett Prebon Plc (Tullet), were rival inter-dealer brokers. BGC recruited Tony Verrier, former COO of Tullett. Shortly after joining, Mr Verrier embarked upon a campaign to recruit brokers from Tullett. He persuaded 13 brokers to sign "forward contracts" providing that they would join BGC as soon as they were free to do so. Three subsequently changed their minds. Significant signing payments were offered to all 13 and indemnities provided in respect of losses caused by them leaving Tullett.

When Tullett learned of the plans afoot, it arranged whiteboard presentations for various brokers some of whom had been approached by BGC, promoting Tullett's business and outlining the risks of joining BGC. Tullett also noted that it would take legal action against the individuals. Tullett later suspended Mr Hall, a desk manager, who they believed was acting as a recruiting sergeant for BGC. Within short succession, the remaining 9 brokers (the Defendant Brokers) resigned, on instructions from Mr Verrier, claiming they had been constructively dismissed in light of the whiteboard presentations and Mr Hall's treatment when he was suspended.

Tullett commenced proceedings against BGC, Mr Verrier, Mr Lynn, Mr Hall and the Defendant Brokers claiming, amongst other things, conspiracy and inducing breach of contract and seeking injunctive relief. The Court granted a "no poaching" injunction preventing BGC from approaching any UK-based Tullett employee (whether lawfully or unlawfully) pending trial. Undertakings were also given including that Tullet would treat the brokers as being on garden leave until trial. By the time judgment was given, those undertakings had been in place for almost 12 months. At trial, Tullett sought an injunction to prevent the Defendant Brokers working for BGC until October 2010, which would have amounted to an injunction of 18 months, and damages. BGC counterclaimed against Tullett for inducing three brokers to change their minds and breach the contracts entered into with BGC.


1. Constructive Dismissal

Wise to the fact that all too often arguments of repudiatory breach are constructed by employees seeking to avoid "notice periods and irksome covenants", the Court held that the Defendant Brokers had not been constructively dismissed and that Mr Hall had relied on manufactured grounds.

Despite the fact that the whiteboard presentations had been attended by "a formidable team" of Tullett's senior management and members of its legal department, the Court held that, rather than being designed to destroy the relationship of trust and confidence between it and the Defendant Brokers, they were intended to strengthen it.

2. Conspiracy and Inducing Breach of Contract

The Court accepted that it was BGC's intention to injure Tullett by recruiting its employees to advance its own business, even if that was not its dominant intention or purpose. It was sufficient that BGC intended (by unlawful means) to injure its rival's business as a means to an end.

3. Injunctions

Encouragingly for employers in Tullett's position, the Court found that it was not unreasonable to have a non-compete restrictive covenant with no garden leave off-set. However, lack of an off-set was a factor to consider in determining whether to uphold a covenant, and if so, for how long.

It also held that non-compete covenants are not unreasonable where non-solicitation and non-dealing covenants may be difficult to enforce. A six month non-compete period was reasonable given the importance of broker/trader relationships.

Weighing up all of this, the Court deemed that 9 of the 10 brokers should not be kept out of the market for any longer than 12 months (a period that was shortly due to expire). For the remaining broker, a period of 8 months was justified.

In terms of the no poaching injunction granted pending trial, that would continue for another 14 days only. Although Tullet argued this injunction should be extended, the Court held that the potential destabilisation of its workforce was no longer a significant factor as the Defendant Brokers had been on garden leave for almost 12 months.

4. Breach of 'Forward Contracts'

The Court found that Tullett had not induced the three brokers who changed their mind to breach their contracts with BGC. BGC had itself breached the relationship of trust and confidence with those brokers before the employment relationship had even started due to its "cynical disregard for the law and for employees' duties throughout the recruitment exercise." They were therefore induced to breach contracts they were entitled to end in any event due to BGC's conduct, so BGC suffered no loss.

5. Repayment of Retention Payments and Loyalty Bonuses

Tullett sought repayment of retention payments paid to the Defendant Brokers, which were stated to be repayable if notice was given during the fixed-term of the contract, and bonuses, 25% of which were attributable to past performance and 75% to loyalty. Under the relevant provision, they were entitled to retain one-sixth of the bonus for each complete month worked after payment date.

BGC argued that Tullett's claim for repayment amounted to an unlawful restraint of trade. The Court disagreed as the repayment provision did not affect the brokers' ability to work after they left employment; they were substantial sums paid to highly paid employees as a reward for loyalty.

The Court also held that the repayment provision was not a penalty as it was not a sum payable in the event of a breach of contract. The sums claimed by Tullett were repayable on any departure, not just one in breach of contract. The Judge was also plainly influenced by the fact that the brokers were "intelligent, successful men capable of driving a bargain with Tullett and the law should not look for ways for them to avoid the provisions of their contracts."


It is clear that the High Court disapproved of the conduct of the Defendants in this case. It was keen to strike a balance between the right of employees to move from one employer to another and the strong public interest in ensuring that employees who are handsomely remunerated should be held to covenants into which they entered freely.

On the face of it, BGC got off relatively lightly in that, 14 days after judgment was delivered, the brokers were free to go and work for them. However, one of the reasons the Court did not extend the periods of restriction was that it was conscious that the adverse publicity the case had attracted ought to act as a deterrent to BGC acting in the same way again.

The trial was limited to issues of liability and injunctive relief. There will be a further hearing to resolve the matter of damages (if it cannot be agreed between the parties). Tullett will argue that significant damage was caused to their business and given the apparently dim view the Court took of BGC's conduct, the damages award may be substantial.


This case contains many useful learning points for those involved in team moves as well as some warnings as to the potential pitfalls involved.

Tips for Gamekeepers:

  • Consider including a provision in contracts for senior/valued employees that they must inform you if they receive an approach from a rival. This would provide a valuable opportunity to consider whether or not there was a wish to retain the services of the employee in question. The Court held that such a provision in the contract of a senior employee would not amount to a restraint of trade as the employee could decide whether or not to move.
  • Include a clause in the contract which requires an employee to show his contract to a prospective employer so that that employer is aware of the restrictive covenants. That is likely to make it easier to get a claim for inducing breach of contract off the ground.
  • If an employee is required to repay a bonus within a certain period of payment if he leaves/gives notice, consider specifying that a significant proportion of the bonus relates to loyalty. That seemed to be influential in the Court's decision that the bonus clause did not amount to a restraint of trade.
  • If seeking to persuade employees to stay, be careful not to stray into behaviour that would constitute constructive dismissal. Tullett's whiteboard presentation did not cross the line. However, the Court was influenced by the "strength of character" of the brokers. In a case of "shrinking violets" (as the Court put it), this might not have been so.
  • Consider at an early stage what evidence is available to prove the allegations. In this case, orders for delivery up of blackberries were sought but as the Judge recorded, "it was Mr Verrier's gambit to "lose" blackberries whenever he thought they might contain inconvenient material". Nevertheless, the Court was able to establish a pattern of communication amongst the Defendants by examining telephone records.

Tips for Poachers:

  • Do not assume that ignorance of the terms of an employee's contract is a defence. Being indifferent can be sufficient to satisfy the test for inducing a breach of contract.
  • If offering an employee an indemnity in respect of legal costs and financial losses suffered as a result of leaving the current employer, this will usually be on the condition that the recruiting employer can direct the employee's conduct. Although this is the most practical way of the indemnity working, it could increase the likelihood of a finding that the poacher induced a breach of contract by the employee. The other drawback of offering an indemnity is that it arguably makes the employee more likely to breach his/her contract.
  • If using a desk head (or similar level of employee) as a recruiting sergeant, bear in mind the view in this case that a desk head is under a plain legal duty to act in the best interests of his employer and to report a proposed poaching raid by a competitor (even though that may appear to be in conflict with the obligations he feels he owes the members of his team). He would then be under an obligation to follow his employer's instructions to prevent that raid happening.
  • Remember that it may be a breach of duty for an employee to provide information to a competitor to further a recruitment exercise, which the employee knows would assist the competitor and harm his/her employer, even if that information is not confidential.
  • Do not forget that actions can amount to a breach of trust and confidence even before an individual has started employment – e.g. the way in which the recruitment exercise has been conducted.
  • Bear in mind that relevant communications by mobile or blackberry may be disclosable (and even the records for those devices may have to be disclosed).

Learn more about our Employment practice.

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities ("Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; and JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia. The Mayer Brown Practices are known as Mayer Brown JSM in Asia.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

Copyright 2010. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, and/or JSM. All rights reserved.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions