Although I have just asked another question:
Does she know of any case law stopping an employee working for a competitor as I have just realised the flaw in her response-ie that she has never lost one of these..

Kona Nope try again…

I’m not commenting on this case specifically (though 2 years seems excessive), my point is that there are bound to be a reasonable number of enforcable RC’s around – you seem to be saying there are hardly any.

Lawyers will be drafting some of them and they will know what’s enforceable, there were plenty to study when I did contract law many years ago.

Also…it depends on the circumstances of each case.

Yes jonv that is what she is doing hence why its a compromise as they are letting her work there – neither side is very happy nor furiously mad

I suspect they would get away with doing whatever they want tbh but it would be best to try and be fair then just walk anyway and see what they do

Its restraint of trade they wont, IMHO, be able to enforce

my point is that there are bound to be a reasonable number of enforcable RC’s around – you seem to be saying there are hardly any.

Shifting the goalposts! My reference was purely to consider the idea that she could not get a job with a competitor, in such a generic industry which is what I asked the barrister. There are obviously loads of enforcable RC’s, just that stopping someone from carrying on their trade is harder to enforce, than say stopping them from trying to poach clients of the previous employer. Which seems all the googleing in the world shows that this is the case.

How does this restraint of trade apply to franchises?

Shifting the goal posts indeed…

what do you mean Al, in my post the bits in bold are about preventing employees from getting a job in the same industry, this was my point? How have a shifted the goalposts? I never said other RC’s were uncommon. I think you are making prejudgements against what I was saying