It is sometimes possible to persuade a court to enforce a restriction that is otherwise unreasonably wide by severing, or effectively deleting, a specific aspect of the restriction. The risks and opportunities this creates need to be considered by employers when drafting as well as enforcing restrictions. For more information see our website.

Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
, , , , , , ,
Laura Anthony

About Laura Anthony

Laura supports the team on a broad range of both contentious and non-contentious legal matters, acting for both employers and employees. Her experience includes: advising corporate bodies and senior-level individuals on a wide range of employment law issues; drafting and negotiating terms of employment contracts and consultancy agreements; advising on and negotiating settlement agreements for employers and exiting employees; reviewing and drafting employment policies and handbooks; advising employers on exiting strategies and the associated unfair and wrongful dismissal risks; and providing support on large corporate transactions.

Full bio

You might also like...

Supreme Court rules that embassy staff are not excluded by state immunity

In the recent case of Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs & Anor the Supreme Court agreed with the EAT and the Court of Appeal and unanimously held that sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA) cannot protect embassies from Employment Tribunal claims brought by domestic staff in the UK.

By Helena Rozman