Restrictive Clause in Contract

DollyDee_2

Hello

I'm sure I've read something about this on the forum before but I cannot find it at the moment.

My son is a hairdresser. He is thinking about opening his own salon in the future but there is a clause in his contract stating he cannot work within a 5 or 6 mile radius of the salon where he is currently employed.

Is this enforceable?

He's been employed there just over 2 years. It's an independent business, not part of a big chain (if that makes any difference).

Thank you

mcfisco

If that's all the covenant says, it's unreasonable
Does it give any sort of timeframe?

DollyDee_2

Thank you for your reply.

Got his contract out now.

Under Restrictions it states "You will not after the cessation of your employment with the company work in a similar or same role within a five mile radius of the company premises or solicit any customers from the company".

No mention of time limits.

mcfisco

I reckon that would be too wide ranging to be enforceable

There's a few experts on here that would be able to give a more informed opinion

directdebiter

Its a reasonable clause but needs a defined time period.
Otherwise it is forever!
Also has he signed the contract?

Most of the time, employers dont take legal action where someone breaks the covenent. Too much cost and time.

DollyDee_2

Hello

He's actually got 2 contracts here. The one I quoted from was the earlier one not the most recent. Neither are dated which is why I didn't realise which was which.

However, the second one (there was a small change to the trading name) states 12 months. He has signed it.

Thank you

agrinnall

The not soliciting customers bit seems reasonable, but exclusion from a 5 mile radius for a business such as hairdressing seems totally unreasonable - in fact, I'd say any geographic restriction is unreasonable. It's not as if he's going to be taking some scarce skill or technical knowledge elsewhere, however good a hairdresser he is.

I doubt whether an independent would have the resources to take this to court. He could also perhaps argue that running his own salon is not a "similar or same role" to just cutting hair.