Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019]

Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 is a notable case, where the Supreme Court addressed when a problematic section of a non-compete clause could be severed from a contract to make it enforceable. This case involved Egon Zehnder (EZ), a global search and recruitment firm, which had employed Ms Tillman under a contract containing a non-compete clause. This clause restricted Tillman from being 'directly or indirectly engaged or concerned or interested in' any business competing with EZ UK or the broader EZ Group for six months after her employment ended.

After leaving her position in 2017, Tillman intended to join a competitor, leading to a legal dispute over the enforceability of her non-compete clause. She argued that the clause was an unreasonable restraint on trade, and therefore void. In response, Egon Zehnder sought an injunction to enforce the clause. The High Court granted this injunction, concluding that the language 'interested in' did not constitute an unreasonable restraint. However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding the clause overly restrictive, and the case was then brought to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court focused on three key issues: the nature of the restraint of trade, the interpretation of the phrase 'interested in', and the principle of severance. First, the Court confirmed that the non-compete clause constituted a restraint of trade but was legally permissible in this context. On the second issue, the Court held that 'interested in' included any shareholding in a competitor, making the clause overly restrictive. As written, this phrase barred Tillman from even a minor investment in a competitor, thus constituting an unreasonable restraint of trade.

The Court then turned to the doctrine of severance, assessing whether the phrase 'interested in' could be removed without affecting the rest of the clause or altering the contract’s nature. The Court established that severance was appropriate here since the removal of the phrase left the remainder of the clause intact and enforceable, without any need to rewrite other parts of the contract. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the High Court's injunction, limiting Tillman’s employment opportunities with competitors as per the modified non-compete clause.

This case was landmark for its clarification of severance principles in restraint of trade cases. It highlighted the need for clear and carefully drafted restrictive covenants in employment contracts, as the courts may only sever unreasonable portions that can be removed cleanly, without fundamentally altering the contract's character. This ruling emphasised the judicial preference to preserve enforceable portions of a contract wherever possible, ensuring that contractual restrictions on employees' future employment can remain valid even if parts of those restrictions are deemed unreasonable.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.