In April’s instalment, our team identify key takeaways from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Boydell v NZP Pharma Limited surrounding the enforceability of non-compete clauses. We highlight the letter recently published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding the definition of ‘sex’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. We also set out some of the key features of the new Acas guidance on reasonable adjustments for mental health and consider the new Government guidance on ethnicity pay reporting and positive action measures.

1. Non-Compete Clauses – Are they Enforceable?

   In Boydell v NZP Ltd, the Court of Appeal considered whether a non-compete clause could be enforced after severing words from it.

   The facts:

   • Dr Boydell’s contract of employment with NZP Ltd (“NZP”) included a 12-month non-compete clause which prevented him from working for any competing business of NZP or any of NZP’s group companies. After Dr Boydell resigned to work for a main competitor, NZP sought injunctive relief from the High Court to enforce the non-compete clause.
   • Dr Boydell argued that the non-compete was drafted too widely and was therefore an unfair restraint on trade. However, rather than finding the entire clause to be non-enforceable, the High Court held that some of the wording in the non-compete could be severed, including the reference to NZP group companies, meaning that the remainder of the non-compete was enforceable. The High Court therefore granted the injunction....

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiT2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmpkc3VwcmEuY29tL2xl...