Non-compete clauses are common in UK employment contracts — but many are unenforceable. Here's how to tell whether yours would hold up in court, and what you can do about it.
Non-compete clauses are one of the most misunderstood parts of any employment contract. Many employees assume that because something is written in their contract, they are bound by it. Many employers assume the same. In practice, a large number of non-compete clauses would never survive a legal challenge.
Here's what UK law actually says — and how to assess whether yours is enforceable.
A non-compete clause (also called a "non-competition covenant" or "restraint of trade" clause) is a contractual provision that restricts what you can do after leaving your employer. Typically, it prevents you from:
They appear in employment contracts, settlement agreements, and sometimes in shareholder or partnership agreements.
Under English common law, any clause that restricts a person's ability to work or trade is presumed to be void — unless the employer can demonstrate it is reasonable.
This is known as the restraint of trade doctrine, and it places the burden of proof on the employer to justify the restriction, not on you to prove it's unfair.
The key test, established over more than a century of case law, is whether the clause:
If the clause fails any of these tests, it is unenforceable — and a court will not "read it down" to make it reasonable. It simply fails.
Courts have recognised two main categories:
Trade secrets and confidential information If you have genuine access to confidential business information that, if disclosed to a competitor, would cause real harm — such as a proprietary formula, a client database, or a unique business process — a non-compete to protect that information may be justified.
Trade connections If your role involves building personal relationships with clients or suppliers — such that those clients might follow you to a competitor because of their relationship with you personally — restricting contact with those specific clients may be legitimate.
Crucially, courts have held that an employer has no legitimate interest in simply preventing competition as such. The clause must protect something specific, not just give the employer a commercial advantage.
Even if there is a legitimate interest, the clause must be reasonable in scope. Courts look at:
Duration How long does the restriction last? Six months is generally more defensible than twelve months. Anything beyond twelve months is very rarely enforced by English courts, except in the most senior or specialist roles.
Geographic scope Does the restriction apply nationally, regionally, or globally? A national non-compete for a local business is likely unreasonable. A global restriction for a multinational role in a global market is more defensible.
Scope of activity What exactly is prohibited? A restriction on working for five named direct competitors in a specific sector is narrow and more enforceable. A restriction on working "in any capacity for any business that competes with the company in any market" is almost certainly too broad.
Your seniority and access to confidential information The more senior the role and the more sensitive the information, the more likely a court is to uphold a proportionate restriction.
Upload any UK legal document and get an instant AI breakdown — clause by clause, risk by risk, in plain English.
| Clause | Likely outcome | |--------|---------------| | 6-month restriction on joining 3 named direct competitors, for a senior sales director with access to client databases | Potentially enforceable | | 12-month global ban on working in the same industry for a junior marketing executive | Very likely unenforceable | | 3-month restriction in the same city for a client-facing account manager | Probably enforceable | | 2-year worldwide restriction on a software developer with no client contact | Almost certainly unenforceable |
Even if a clause is unenforceable, breaching it is not risk-free. Your employer may:
An injunction application is expensive and stressful, even if you ultimately win. This is why many employees comply with unenforceable restrictions simply to avoid the legal fight.
The previous Government consulted on limiting non-competes to three months maximum, bringing the UK in line with some US states (California bans them entirely). As of early 2026, this reform has not been enacted — non-competes remain governed by the common law test described above.
Watch this space: if legislation does pass, it would be a significant shift.
Before signing:
After leaving:
If you're considering challenging it:
Non-compete clauses are not automatically enforceable just because they're in your contract. But they're not automatically void either. The answer depends entirely on whether the specific restriction in your specific role is proportionate to a genuine business interest.
The safest approach is always to get advice tailored to your circumstances — not to rely on general guidance from the internet (including this article) as the final word on your position.
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, consult a solicitor regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. You can find one via the Law Society's Find a Solicitor service at solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk.
Upload any UK legal document and get an instant AI breakdown — clause by clause, risk by risk, in plain English.
Related Guides
Not all employment contracts are created equal. These 10 clauses are commonly misunderstood, frequently overreaching, and sometimes unenforceable — here's what to look for.
If you're being made redundant, UK law entitles you to statutory redundancy pay — but many employees don't know how to calculate it or what else they're owed. Here's the full picture.
Zero hours contracts are widely used in the UK — but many workers don't realise they still have legal rights. Here's what you're entitled to, and what employers cannot do.