This week’s legal case round-upFinding new employment Tibbett & Britten UK Ltd v Burke, EAT, 27 November 2002, All ER (D)130 Employers can take some comfort from the employment appeal tribunal’s (EAT)approach to assessing compensation for unfair dismissal in this case. Burke, 57, resigned from his job with Tibbett & Britten and successfullyclaimed constructive dismissal. Since leaving his job, Burke had found newemployment via an agency, but it paid less. In calculating his ongoing loss, the tribunal concluded that Burke wouldhave remained in Tibbett & Britten’s employment until retirement at the ageof 65, and took account of the difference in pay between his former and currentemployment in awarding £54,836 compensation. Tibbett & Britten successfullyappealed to the EAT. The EAT held there had to be a finding, and an allowance, if appropriate, inrespect of whether Burke, having found relatively less well paid employment,would have been able to secure a better job on more favourable terms at somestage in the future, notwithstanding his age. Furthermore, the tribunal hadbeen wrong in making no discount for accelerated payment – it failed to takeaccount of the fact that Burke would have received future years’ salary as alump sum payment up front. Restricting employees in the future Arbuthnot Fund Managers Ltd v Nigel Rawlings, CA, 13 March 2003, All ER(D) 181 – This case should serve as a reminder to employers to check thatrestrictive covenants in employees’ contracts are appropriately drafted.Rawlings was employed as an executive director by a company engaged in fundmanagement and investment for private clients, trusts and charities. After Rawlings left his employment, the company issued proceedings seekingto enforce the restrictive covenants in his service agreement which preventedhim from: – Soliciting or dealing with any person, firm or company who had, within the12 months prior to termination, done business with the company – Soliciting or dealing with anybody who was a prospective client of thecompany in the six months prior to termination An interim injunction was granted which restrained Rawlings from acting inbreach of the restrictive covenants until the matter could be heard at a fulltrial. Rawlings appealed on the grounds that the restraint terms were too wide andhis appeal was successful in part. The Court of Appeal held that the terms ofthe restraint clauses in the service agreement (as reflected in the interiminjunction), were too wide. In particular, the use of the words “any person, firm or company”could be interpreted as meaning any person who was a client or prospectiveclient of the company. It could not have been intended to include all personswith whom the company had or was to have dealings, rather only those personswho were investment clients. The interim injunction was amended to restrain Rawlings from soliciting ordealing with any client who had carried out investment business with thecompany at any time during the 12 months leading up to termination. Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article Case round-upOn 1 Apr 2003 in Personnel Today Related posts:No related photos.