Restraints of trade: lessons for real estate agents

Their for­mer employ­er sought inter­locu­to­ry injunc­tions restrain­ing our clients from work­ing in their new jobs. The deci­sion is high­ly sig­nif­i­cant because it inter­prets aspects of indus­try stan­dard employ­ment con­tracts for real estate agents, and rein­forces an ear­li­er deci­sion from 2020 involv­ing the same con­trac­tu­al claus­es. The deci­sion also reit­er­ates that it may be more dif­fi­cult to enforce non-com­pete claus­es where employ­ees are ter­mi­nat­ed for rea­sons beyond their own con­trol, and that restraints must be rea­son­able if they are to be enforced.

The case involved com­plex issues about non-solic­i­ta­tion of the for­mer employ­er’s clients and con­fi­den­tial infor­ma­tion, as well as employ­ment law issues sur­round­ing redun­dan­cy. Our clients had a con­vinc­ing win, with the inter­locu­to­ry appli­ca­tions against them being dis­missed with costs at the first avail­able opportunity. 

A link to the case is here

Nick and Sean instruct­ed Bernard Lloyd of Coun­sel, thank him for all of his skill­ful work and acknowl­edge the invalu­able con­tri­bu­tions of Esther Koo — Senior Asso­ciate , Daniel Miller — Asso­ciate, Suzi Sto­janovs­ki — Senior Asso­ciate and Cather­ine Aird — Legal Sec­re­tary to the outcome.