The prime minister confirmed in a recent speech that the government would be introducing legislation to restrict the use of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. We have no further detail on what form this will take as yet. The last we heard on this topic was in November 2025 when the government issued a working paper on options for reform of non-compete clauses, seeking input on alternative policy options including banning or further limiting non-compete clauses. There have been previous consultations on the same topic in 2016 and 2020, with a proposal to introduce a statutory cap of three months on non-compete clauses in employment and worker contracts put forward in 2023.
Contractual protections such as non-compete clauses, however, are not the only line of defence against misuse of confidential information by departing employees. Effective technical monitoring of employee data access is also an extremely valuable safeguard. Where potential misuse has been detected, the UK courts show a clear willingness to support early intervention before that information is further shared or misused. This is borne out by recent examples: in the last six months, several businesses have obtained interim injunctions against ex-employees and their new employers, typically triggered by technical evidence that the employee had sent confidential information to a personal email address. While the law itself hasn't changed, these cases confirm that courts are prepared to act quickly once that evidence is in hand.
In Perform Content Services Ltd v Stone (judgment not reported), a former sales executive was alleged to have forwarded confidential customer information, including customer lists and contract renewal data, to his personal email account while under performance review and immediately following the conclusion of his dismissal process. After the employee allegedly refused to delete the information, the employer sought interim relief and obtained undertakings requiring the return and destruction of confidential information while broader proceedings continue.
In Acrisure UK Services Ltd v Cross (judgment not reported), the High Court granted relief preventing former senior executives from using confidential information they had allegedly sent to personal Gmail accounts before moving to a competing business. Although the executives maintained that there was no intention to misuse the material and that some documents had been sent in the ordinary course of business, the case reflects employers' increasing willingness to seek urgent court intervention where commercially sensitive information is believed to have left the organisation's systems.
Similarly, in Novo Nordisk Ltd v Kausi ([2026] EWHC 1929 (KB)), the High Court granted an injunction preventing a former employee from using or disclosing information that had allegedly been forwarded to personal email accounts. Notably, however, the court declined to order delivery up of the material at the interim stage, finding that some of the documents may not have been confidential. The decision illustrates both the availability of prompt injunctive relief and the court's focus on proportionality where the status of the information in question is itself disputed.
Taken together, these cases underscore the importance of identifying and responding to suspicious data transfers at an early stage. In practice, employers are often in a stronger position where they can point to clear technical evidence that confidential information has been copied, downloaded or forwarded outside corporate systems, allowing them to seek protective relief before any wider misuse occurs.
While other protections in employment contracts can be just as effective as pure non-competes – for example, non-solicitation, non-dealing and non-poaching – preventing departing employees from transferring confidential data to a new employer in the first place is an important step, and more effective than trying to cure the use of that information further down the line.
We recommend that you carry out the following actions:
Take swift action to address potential misuse of confidential information by ex-employees. Ensure systems to detect data exfiltration are effective and actively monitored, and seek injunctive relief quickly in appropriate cases.
Reconsider reliance on non-compete clauses. Whether or not the government introduces further limits, non-compete clauses are only a partial solution to misuse of confidential information by departing employees. Effective technical protections during employment, including least-privilege access to minimise the availability of information, and blocking or detection of suspicious data downloads, may be more valuable.
Review confidentiality provisions and other protections in employment contracts, including non-solicitation, non-dealing and non-poaching. If these provisions are as effective as they can be, a pure non-compete clause may not give much additional protection.
