header-logo header-logo

16 May 2023
Issue: 8025 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-detail

Non-compete proposals set off alarm bells

Employment lawyers have expressed concerns about government proposals to limit non-compete clauses and water down the Working Time Regulations (WTR).

Business secretary Kemi Badenoch launched the proposals last week in a policy paper, ‘Smarter regulation to grow the economy’. The launch coincided with Badenoch’s announcement that she was dropping the sunset clauses in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which many lawyers had warned would damage business interests and cause chaos.

The proposals include legislating to restrict non-compete clauses to three months, which, the paper states, will not interfere with employers’ ability to use gardening leave or non-solicitation clauses, nor will it affect arrangements on confidentiality clauses.

The government would also reform the WTR, removing the current requirement on employers to keep working hour records, reintroducing rolled-up holiday, which has been deemed unlawful by EU case law, and merging the separate ‘basic’ and ‘additional’ leave entitlements under the WTR into one entitlement to annual leave.

Charlie Barnes, head of employment legal services at RSM UK, said the change to non-compete clauses could be ‘significant’ for businesses, ‘particularly in niche innovative industries where the pool of competition is limited’.

Barnes warned it could ‘have the reverse effect on innovation if companies feel unable to protect themselves from a key employee leaving to join a competitor, taking confidential information with them, in just three months. If these changes are made, such businesses will need to revisit contracts of employment to require longer paid notice periods or garden leave clauses to keep senior leavers away from competitors for more than three months.

‘This will impose a larger financial burden on businesses.’

Barnes said the WTR proposals may not create as big a boost for businesses as the government anticipated, since employers would still be required to keep records of working time in order to comply with national minimum wage legislation and holiday pay obligations.

Issue: 8025 / Categories: Legal News , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridgestrengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll