UK: Restrictive Covenants Case: Tillman v Egon Zehnder: The Drafting And Practical Implications

Restrictive covenants are a key tool for organisations to protect the business when an employee leaves. However, it is vital the drafting goes no further than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. If they are drafted too widely, they are unenforceable. We discuss the landmark case of Tillman v Egon Zehnder and the practical implications for drafting and enforcing restrictive covenants.

To view the podcast click here

Siobhan Bishop: Hello and welcome to our podcast where we are discussing what is one of the most important cases of the year and what is definitely a landmark case on restrictive covenants. So in this podcast we're going to be focussing on the Supreme Court's decision in Tillman & Egon Zehnder and what it means for restrictive covenants, both drafting them and the practical implications of that decision.

I'm Siobhan Bishop, a Principal Associate in the Employment, Labour & Equalities Team here at Gowling WLG and I'm joined by Martin Chitty, a Partner in the Team.

So this case is seen as good news for employers relying on restrictive covenants and it will make it harder for employees to argue that they are unenforceable, even where they may be too wide on the face of it.

Just going back to first principles, as a matter of public policy, restrictive covenants (or post termination restrictions) are an unlawful restraint of trade. However, they will be enforced and valid in certain circumstances - if they protect a legitimate business interest to a reasonable extent. The interest is about typically confidential information or what is known as "goodwill" - so customer or staff connections - and what is reasonable will all depend on the seniority of the individual, what is reasonable in those circumstances and in a particular market. The Court can also, in some cases, "blue pencil" a certain provision in a contract which essentially means editing it in some way by crossing out the offending part and removing those terms which are excessive and will enforce the remaining part of the clause.

However, the Court will not do this in every case and generally the Court will not reduce or redraft a clause to make it work. So it's very important that these clauses are drafted carefully and are bespoke to a particular individual and the particular market in which they work, so that the organisation ultimately is properly protected.

Martin Chitty: Well, Ms Tillman joined Zehnder in 2004. She was in the words of the Court seen as "a bit special". She came in on a high salary, guaranteed bonus and overtime, some time later she became a partner in the business and in her contact were, if you like, the standard suite of restrictions. There were restrictions on solicitation of customers and other people and then there was a very broad prohibition on her going to work for a competitor and that became important because in 2017 she was poached by a competitor in the market.

So, she gave notice, she made it clear that she was going to abide by the terms of her contract going forward with the one exception of the fact that she was going to go and work for the competitor. She said that provision is not enforceable. Discussions took place, didn't reach a conclusion and it became unavoidable that Zehnder commenced litigation.

Actually they got on with the litigation really quickly because they issued proceedings on 10 April. They got into Court on 15 May 2017. The initial hearing upheld the restrictions in their favour. Ms Tillman appealed because she now found that she couldn't go and work for her new employers, and that was heard in the Court of Appeal on 21 July, so just over two months later. Now, that may not sound particularly quick but in the way in which these things evolve, it is actually rocket-assisted.

Siobhan: And the key clause in the contract was Ms Tillman's post termination non-competition clause – which essentially said that - for 6 months after she left employment she would not:

"directly or indirectly engage or be concerned or interested in any business in competition with Egon Zehnder..."

The clause also applied to businesses in competition with any Group Company and there were some limitations such as it only applied to businesses which were carried on at the Termination Date or during the period of 12 months prior to that date and with which Ms Tillman was materially concerned during that period.

But what did having an "interest in" a competitor actually mean? Ms Tillman said that it prevented her holding even a very small shareholding in a competing business (such as one share in a publically quoted company) and that made the clause too wide and as a result it was "in restraint of trade" because it went further than necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of Egon Zehnder. If that was right, the post termination non-competition clause would be unenforceable in its entirety unless those words "interested in" could be removed from the clause under the "principle of severance" leaving the remainder of the clause enforceable.

Ms Tillman argued that the offending words could not be severed and even though she did not intend to hold a shareholding in a competitor, she could work for one because that covenant was unenforceable.

It's also worth noting that in this case there was a separate clause in the contract which related to restrictions during her employment. And that clause prevented Ms Tillman from being interested in a competitor during her employment. However, unlike the post termination non-competition clause, it had an exception to it. During her employment, she could hold a minority shareholding, for investment only, of up to 5% in a publicly quoted company.

And of course, the post-termination restriction did not have this type of minority shareholding exception. So, what happened?

Zehnder then lost in the Court of Appeal and the Court concluded that the restriction which prohibited her having any interest after employment, when it had been permitted before termination, was unreasonable. It did not matter whether she had ever intended to buy any shares in a competitor at all and on that basis the clause was defective and so was not enforceable at all. One of the key points was that the Court concluded that it could not simply take out those offending words and leave the rest of the clause on its own and enforceable. And so, Martin, we then moved onto the Supreme Court where the appeal was based on two reasons.

Martin: Yes, that's right. In the circumstances Zehnder had little alternative because they had decided to take the fight to Ms Tillman and they had lost in the Court of Appeal, so the only way of restricting it was to go further.

Their argument was two basic points, but actually the first one is split into two parts. They went for a really big question as the first part which is the restriction on which they wanted to rely isn't subject at all to the doctrine and the philosophy of "restraint of trade", which you talked about earlier, and in fact therefore the Court shouldn't be thinking about "restraint of trade" because it was irrelevant, they should just allow it to stay in place. And it's fair to say the Supreme Court dismissed that very quickly and gave it very short shrift.

So that left them with the question of whether a restriction on being "interested" in a competitor, what did that mean and how did it work in practice? In fact they'd managed to review, in a relatively detailed way, something like 600 years of case law over a very short period of time. They've concluded that that sort of restriction equates with having a shareholding in a competitor is competition and on that basis it was caught by the doctrine, but the restriction was too wide, because when she entered into the restriction in 2004 it was beyond what was necessary to protect their interest to a reasonable extent. So that one got thrown out.

Siobhan: So this is good news for employers for a number of reasons. Well drafted contracts will have a small shareholding exception anyway, allowing an employee to hold a limited number of shares. But for current contracts of employment that don't have that exception, there may be a lifeline as a result of this case because they may well still be enforceable if they prevent the employee from being interested in another business if that part of the clause can be severed. However, this case does not mean that that will always be the case because the general rule is still valid and that general rule is that contractual restraints on a former employee's freedom to work are generally void and unenforceable, as being in restraint of trade and contrary to the public policy point we talked about, unless they are no wider than necessary to protect the legitimate business interest for a reasonable period. So you will still need to be checking the wording of the carve-out of the restriction and that it includes having an interest in another business and that is wide enough, but also the "blue pencil" test isn't always going to be that lifeline because it depends on the whole clause and how that is drafted.

Martin: Yes, that's right. The Court are able to sever any unenforceable words, as they have done in the Tillman case, but what they can't do is re-write them, so if what you're left with makes no sense, and that's probably the more important point rather than it changing somehow the bargain the parties originally made, they won't enforce it. Similarly, they won't imply restrictions, they won't imply wordings into the clauses, generally speaking, in order to make them valid and absolutely what they will not do is change the terms. So if, for instance, the Court decides that a 12 months restriction is too much but a 3 month restriction would have been enough, they won't simply substitute one for the other, that's not the use of a "blue pencil". Blue pencil simply takes something out, so employers still have to be wary about all of that and our advice would be consider your standard form contracts, think carefully before you look to enforce them, because although it might be more attractive to pursue people after they've left and a bit easier, it's not necessarily without its risks.

The other point to think about, and this is a problem which the Tillman case also highlights in the Supreme Court Judgment. When Ms Tillman was promoted, and as she was several times, ultimately when she became a partner which is a grade in the business, she wasn't given a new contract, so she had only got the contract she had when she first joined. Now ultimately that might not have made any difference, because there was nothing to suggest that they would have changed the way in which they drafted the agreements, but as a general principle these restrictions are judged by their enforceability when they are entered into and what's reasonable when you are a director, is something quite different to what might be regarded as reasonable when you joined the company as a trainee, for instance. So employers need to keep their eyes on that over time, as there is a constant need for review.

Siobhan: So where do we think this case leaves us now? Obviously there is good news, on the face of it. Do you think there will be other consequences, such as potentially encouraging employers to be more aggressive in their drafting, potentially including wider clauses in anticipation that if the employee challenges them, the Courts may apply a "blue pencil" test to any parts that are seen as invalid and remove those offending parts, leaving the rest enforceable?

Martin: I think that's highly likely, to be perfectly honest. Whether we describe it as "aggressive" or not I don't know whether that's quite the right language. What we have seen over time, when these issues have come up before is a stylistic change. So rather than having one single clause with lots and lots of restrictions in it, what tends to happen is that you identify a period of restraint and then have all the various elements of it hanging off in lots of separate sub-clauses, and that makes it relatively easy, you would hope, that the Judge when they're looking to enforce it just to skim down the list and go "Ok, Ok, Ok, don't like that one, can put a blue pencil through it" but it doesn't alter the sense of the clause because each sub-element is separate.

There's a second interesting point in here as well which the Supreme Court mentioned right on the very last line of the Judgment. And what they've said, picking up on some language used in earlier cases is this, that if employers haven't sorted themselves out and they come to Court and ask the Court to sort out what was described as their "legal litter", then they must expect that the Court may well look at that in terms of whether they get their costs back or not and listeners will know that costs normally follow the event, so if you win in these circumstances you get your costs back from the errant employee. But here they seem to be suggesting, if you've made a mess of this, if you have been inattentive and you ask us to sort it out, we are going to penalise you in costs. And that creates a very real commercial decision to be made by the employer. You know that you may be able to enforce it, even though it is imperfect, because you expect the Court actually to "blue pencil" the ineffective or excessive elements of it, but question how much are you going to pay? You may not need to go to the Supreme Court. I think what we will see is employers being more robust in terms of pursing the applications at the first instance, but it may mean that they don't get their costs back. So you get what you want but at a price. So commercially do you decide – where do you spend the money? Do you spend the money in trying to restrict someone from moving and going to the new competitor and stealing business from you, or do you invest your money in getting out there and getting in the faces of the clients? What do you invest it in, accepting that well, we won't bother this time, we'll just get better contracts in place going forward.

Siobhan: So if you're going through the latter of those approaches, it's really important to focus on what you actually need to protect at the beginning and to keep that under review as you mentioned before.

Martin: Yes, that's absolutely right. And one of the things we learn over time when we are trying to enforce these restrictions is you have to explain to the Court why the clause does what it tries to do. Why is it 12 months rather than 6 or 3, or 9 or 24? What is it about your business and the business cycle that requires that level of restriction? Why should it only apply, for instance, to people you've dealt with in the preceding 24 months. You do need it to apply to people you've dealt with, or the individual has dealt with, personally. But why that period of retrospection rather than any other period? And it's useful to have had that in mind when you are actually drafting the contract in the first place. Now, I'm not going to say that employers should put a note on the file saying "we did this because" but it would be very helpful to show what was in their mind at the time the contract was entered into, because that's what they're being asked to explain.

Siobhan: So, it's always best to consider what restrictions are needed and that they don't go further than reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, for example, ensuring the activities the time and area of the restriction are appropriately limited.

On the facts of Ms Tillman's case, even though the words did go too far, the words "or interested" were capable of being removed from the post termination non-compete clause. And following this case, we have clear authority for the criterion the court will apply to see whether any wording can be severed. So, for example, in this case, firstly, there was no need to add to or modify the wording of the rest of the clause - the clause still made sense even if you deleted the wording about being "interested in" a competitor. And secondly, removing the wording about being "interested in" a competitor did not generate any major change in the overall effect of the post termination restraints.

So, even though the clause was too wide, because Ms Tillman should have been allowed to hold a minor shareholding for investment purposes, if she had wished, the offending words (being the words "interested in") could be removed and she was bound by the rest of the non-compete clause.

Of course, the severance principle test will not always help save a restriction that is too wide as it will depend on the particular drafting and the employer has to show the test for severance is met. It may be better not to be too greedy because even if the court is prepared to sever the unenforceable part of the covenant, and bearing in mind the court will be cautious in its approach, as Martin mentioned, the costs of enforcing the reminder of a badly drafted clause may be too high.

So, thank you very much, Martin. If you have any questions or concerns on restrictive covenants and how to protect your organisation when an employee leaves, please do get in touch with Martin or any member of the team. Thank you.

Read the original article on

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

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.

Events from this Firm
19 Sep 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Providing GCs, Heads of Legal and senior in-house lawyers with timely, topical and practical legal advice on a variety of topics.

26 Sep 2019, Seminar, London, UK

Providing GCs, Heads of Legal and senior in-house lawyers with timely, topical and practical legal advice on a variety of topics.

8 Oct 2019, Seminar, Birmingham, UK

Supporting the development of paralegals, trainees and lawyers of up to five years' PQE by providing valuable knowledge and guidance together with practical tips.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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