Enforcing Non-compete Clauses: the Importance of Delay and the Balance of Convenience
About this episode
This episode discusses the implications of a recent Court of Appeal decision regarding non-compete clauses and the factors influencing the enforcement of such clauses.
In this episode, Chris Fisher looks at the recent Court of Appeal decision in Planon v Gilligan where the employer was refused an injunction to enforce a non compete clause because of the loss of income that the employee would have suffered and the two month delay before the employer issued its proceedings.
People in this episode
Host: Chris Fisher
Topics covered
- non-compete clauses
- employment law
- court decisions
- injunctions
- balance of convenience
Keywords
- non-compete
- injunction
- employment
- court decision
- Planon v Gilligan
- loss of income
- delay
Mentioned in this episode
Organizations: Court of Appeal, Planon
More episodes of Employment & Benefits Unpacked
- Beyond Borders: Labor Law Strategies for Cross-Border Deals
- Pensions Playbook: Investing in the UK
- ERISA Litigation Targets Voluntary Benefits: What Employers Should Know
- One Big Beautiful Bill Act Part 3 Executive Pay IRC 162 Changes Alternative Minimum Tax Considerations and the New Section 4960 Landscape
- One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Part 2: Leveraging "Trump Accounts" for Financial Wellness, Benefit Plan Design, and Health Savings Plan Specifics
- One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Part 1: Deductions for Tipped Wages, Overtime Breaks, and the New Fringe Benefits Playbook
Explore listener stats, chart rankings, contacts and more on the Employment & Benefits Unpacked podcast page.