A sharp rise in High Court injunctions suggests more employers are turning to legal action to stop former staff from breaching non-compete clauses, as the slowing jobs market drives professionals into self-employment.
According to analysis by law firm Nockolds, claims attempting to enforce post-employment restrictions rose by 43 percent in the first nine months of 2025, with an estimated 4,000 cases filed. That compares to around 2,800 over the same period in 2024.
The firm based its estimate on judgments published by the Chancery and King’s Bench Division of the High Court, extrapolated using standard litigation metrics. While only a fraction of all disputes result in a published decision, the figures point to a clear increase in enforcement activity.
Job market slowdown driving self-employment
The uptick in non-compete disputes coincides with a broader rise in new business formation and a cooling of the permanent jobs market. Recent data from the KPMG and Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) Report on Jobs showed a sharp rise in candidate availability, driven by layoffs and falling employer demand.
Nockolds said that redundancies and hiring freezes were pushing former employees to set up their own firms, sometimes in direct competition with their previous employers.
Joanna Sutton, principal associate at Nockolds, said many professionals saw self-employment as the most viable route after leaving a job. “We’re seeing a marked increase in employers enforcing non-compete clauses in order to protect their business from unfair competition and to send a clear signal to others considering similar moves,” she said.
“With redundancies rising and permanent hiring slowing, many professionals are turning to self-employment. For many departing employees, setting up shop in familiar territory is the only viable path, but that can be exactly where non-compete clauses bite.”
Legal and financial pressure on employers
Rising employer National Insurance contributions have also made direct hiring more expensive, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. Sutton said this had made enforcement more attractive where former employees could damage business continuity by attracting clients, suppliers or staff.
“Setting up a rival business is generally seen as just as great a threat to the former employer’s commercial interests as employees working for an established competitor. Courts are more likely to enforce properly drafted non-compete clauses in these cases, especially where the individual had seniority or access to sensitive data,” she said.
According to Nockolds, courts are more likely to uphold non-compete clauses that are tightly drafted and proportionate in terms of time, scope and geography. Clauses that last too long or apply too broadly are more likely to be thrown out, unless employers can justify the extent of the restriction.
Enforcement is most common where a senior employee leaves to start a rival business in the same sector or region, especially if they held client-facing responsibilities. While employers can apply for injunctions to prevent immediate breaches, poorly worded clauses can render a covenant unenforceable.
Courts won’t rewrite vague clauses
Sutton noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tillman v Egon Zehnder confirmed courts could strike out specific words if they were severable, but would not redraft the terms entirely.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tillman v Egon Zehnder confirmed that courts may remove specific words from a clause if they’re unreasonable and severable, but they won’t rewrite or redraft the clause. Employers need to draft with precision: vagueness won’t survive scrutiny,” she said.
While courts may enforce restrictions longer than 12 months in exceptional circumstances, Sutton said long or indefinite bans were unlikely to hold up. “Courts may uphold a 12 month or more non-compete clause in exceptional cases — typically involving senior roles and sensitive client relationships — but a three-year restriction for an employee is almost certain to fail. Crucially, if a clause is too long, the court won’t rewrite it or enforce a shorter version. It’s all or nothing.”
She said litigation over non-compete clauses was becoming more strategic than reactive, with some employers using it to shape workforce behaviour and deter future breaches. “Non-compete litigation is no longer just reactive; it’s strategic. Employers are using it to shape workforce behaviour, protect client relationships and reinforce boundaries in a volatile market.”
Nockolds advised employers to review their restrictive covenants regularly and tailor them to reflect each role’s responsibilities, level of seniority and exposure to commercially sensitive information.
