HR Headlines - London Employment Newsletter

HR Headlines - London Employment Newsletter


Welcome to the July edition of our HR Headlines.

There have been some interesting employment law decisions over the last few months. In this edition we will report on a couple of important cases dealing with restrictive covenants and the enforceability of 12 month post employment non-compete restrictive covenants. We will also look at a recent constructive dismissal case and the compensation that can be awarded in such claims. Finally, we will review two cases which dealt with the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.


Capgemini India Private Ltd and another v Krishnan and others
This case involved two former employees who were bound by an agreement they entered into, following the termination of their employment, which repeated restrictive covenants originally contained in their contracts of employment.

Merlin Financial Consultants Ltd v Cooper
This case found that a 12 month non-compete clause imposed by a financial adviser consultancy on one of its employees was not unreasonable and therefore enforceable.

Frith Accountants Ltd v Law
In this case the EAT had to decide whether an employee's own conduct could be grounds for reducing the basic and compensatory tribunal awards in a successful constructive dismissal claim. 

Jackson Lloyds Ltd and Mears Group plc v Smith and others
In this case the EAT dismissed an appeal against a ruling that the employees had transferred under TUPE following a purchase by the transferee of all the shares of the transferor.

Prophet plc v Huggett
In this case, an injunction was granted to enforce a 12 month non-compete restrictive covenant which, if interpreted literally, would have been unenforceable.

Warm Zones v Thurley and another
In this case the Court was asked to grant an order allowing Worm Zones to inspect the personal computers of two former employees in order to prove that they were preparing to disclose confidential information of commercial value to their new competitor employer.

Qlog Ltd v O'Brien and others
In this case the EAT dismissed an appeal against a ruling that HGV drivers had transferred under TUPE after the contract for services had been given to the transferee.

Clyde & Co LLP and another v Bates van Winkelhof
In this case, the Supreme Court considered an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that a former law firm equity partner, who was a member of an LLP, was not eligible to bring a whistleblowing claim before the Employment Tribunal. It was held that she was clearly a worker and therefore eligible to bring such a claim.