Andrew Clarke advises employers, potential future employers and employees on the drafting of and the enforceability of restrictive covenants. A substantial part of his practice involves urgent injunction applications in relation to alleged breaches of restrictive covenants and the speedy trials that often follow.
He has been counsel in several of the leading cases in this area. For example, the Dawnay Day litigation which re-shaped so much of the modern thinking on this area of law and the Credit Suisse case which explored the inter-relationship of TUPE and restrictive covenants, both in the Court of Appeal.
He has appeared in many, if not most, of the reported cases on Garden Leave Injunctions, including William Hill v. Tucker and Crystal Palace v. Bruce. He has been at the forefront of shaping the law on springboard injunctions with cases such as Midas v. Opus.
These areas of law are constantly developing and Andrew has been at the forefront of that development. Currently, one area of particular concern is that of team moves (he appeared in the Tullett v. BGC litigation).
He also advises on and appears in cases concerning confidential information. He is currently dealing with cases concerning the definition of confidential information, whether or not there is any concept of ‘inevitable misuse’ known to English law and the proper approach to covenants drafted and intended to operate in a foreign jurisdiction.