Safety Net Security Limited v Coppage & Another [2012] EWHCB11, QBD
The Court enforced a six-month post-termination restrictive covenant, which prevented a director from soliciting anyone who had been a customer or client of Safety Net Security Limited at any time during the course of the director's employment.
Unusually, the Court found that limiting the covenant to a specific period prior to termination was unnecessary in this case. This was because Mr Coppage was a key figure in Safety Net Security Limited's operation, was the "face of the business" and the client base was not very extensive.
Edinburgh Home-Link Partnership & Others v The City of Edinburgh Council & Others [2012] UKEATS/0061/11/BI
This is a transfer of undertakings case where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 ("TUPE") applied to a service provision change (in this case, in-sourcing).
Edinburgh Home-Link Partnership provided outreach services to vulnerable people in relation to housing matters. The Council was Edinburgh Home-Link Partnership's only client and decided to take the services "in house". The Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") found the directors of the service provider were not part of an "organised group of employees" for the purposes of TUPE. This was because the two directors' roles were the strategic running of the organisation, but the EAT found that they were not sufficiently dedicated to the provision of services, for which the Council had contracted and therefore, could not be said to be working on the Council's behalf.
This case gives interesting guidance regarding the need for a connection between the employment of the individuals concerned and the provision of the services being provided to the client.
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.