Charlotte HughesWhen Enzo Maresca left Chelsea on New Year's Day 2026, nine months of Premier League speculation followed. By June, the Italian had been confirmed as Manchester City's new head coach — succeeding Pep Guardiola at the club where he previously served as assistant manager during the historic 2022-23 treble season. His return to the Etihad, less than six months after departing Stamford Bridge, raises an immediate question that resonates far beyond the football pitch: if a high-profile manager can move from one Premier League club directly to a rival, what does UK employment law actually permit when it comes to joining a competitor after leaving your job?
Employment lawyers report a sharp increase in enquiries from workers referencing Maresca's move. The case has made non-compete clauses — once considered a niche legal concern — a topic of genuine mainstream interest across sectors from financial services to technology.
What the Law Actually Says About Restraint of Trade
A post-termination restriction — the legal term for what most people call a non-compete clause — limits what a departing employee can do for a defined period after leaving their role. Under English and Welsh law, these clauses are only enforceable if they go no further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest.
Courts recognise four main legitimate interests: protecting confidential business information, preserving established customer or client relationships, recovering investment in specialist training provided to the employee, and maintaining workforce stability through anti-poaching clauses. A restriction that protects none of these — or that is disproportionately long, geographically excessive, or covers activities well beyond the employee's actual role — is unenforceable as a restraint of trade under English common law.
In Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that courts can sever an overly broad restriction — removing only the unreasonable part while leaving the rest of the clause intact. This decision gave employers greater confidence to draft wider clauses, but it also gave employees a cleaner route to challenge disproportionate restrictions without voiding the entire contract.
According to ACAS, the UK's government-funded employment advisory body, employees are entitled to seek independent legal advice before signing any contract containing a restrictive covenant — a step that many fail to take until the restriction becomes relevant. By that point, negotiating leverage has typically diminished.
Garden Leave: How It Changes the Timeline
In football, and increasingly in senior professional roles, employers manage sensitive departures through garden leave: a period during which a departing employee remains technically employed, continues to receive full pay, but is required to stay away from work and cannot begin new employment elsewhere. It is expensive — the employer must fund the full salary throughout — but highly effective at preventing the immediate flow of commercially sensitive information to a rival.
For employees with a garden leave clause in their contracts, two consequences matter. First, full pay, pension contributions, and contractual benefits continue throughout the garden leave period. Second, depending on how the contract is drafted, any separate post-termination restriction may run consecutively — meaning the total wait before starting a new role combines both the garden leave period and the restriction period.
If an employer chooses not to invoke garden leave even when entitled to do so, most courts hold that the post-termination restriction clock begins from the last day the employee actually worked, not the last day of their contractual notice period. This distinction can meaningfully shorten the time before a departing employee is free to take up a rival offer. It is also a point that many workers — and some employers — overlook entirely.
Earlier this year, analysis of Zidane's four-year contract clauses with the French national team highlighted how even well-known agreement structures can contain provisions that carry significant legal weight for ordinary workers. The same dynamics play out in offices and warehouses across the UK every week.
When Employers Choose to Enforce
Enforcement of restrictive covenants typically begins with a letter before action from the former employer's solicitors, followed — if the employee proceeds regardless — by an application for an interim injunction from the High Court. The court applies what is known as the American Cyanamid test: is there a serious question to be tried, and does the balance of convenience favour granting interim relief?
In practice, many restrictive covenant disputes settle before reaching a full hearing. Legal costs for contested High Court proceedings typically run to £30,000–£80,000 for each side, and the outcome remains uncertain given the courts' well-established reluctance to enforce unreasonable clauses. Employers with strong cases may pursue interim injunctions swiftly — particularly when the departing employee is moving to a direct competitor and holds access to current pricing data, live client lists, or strategic plans for the coming financial year.
It is also worth noting that new employers can be sued alongside the departing employee if they knowingly hire someone in breach of a valid restrictive covenant. Responsible hiring managers typically ask to see a departing candidate's employment contract before finalising any offer. This is standard practice at senior level and an increasingly common request further down the seniority scale.
Concrete Case: A Marketing Director's Nine-Month Wait
Consider Sophie, a 36-year-old B2B marketing director at a London-based financial data company. In September 2026, she accepts an offer from a direct competitor — a £19,000 salary uplift taking her annual package from £71,000 to £90,000. Her current contract includes a three-month notice period and a six-month post-termination non-compete covering "financial data services" within the United Kingdom.
Her employer invokes garden leave for the full three-month notice period. The non-compete runs consecutively, meaning Sophie faces a combined nine-month wait before her start date at the new firm.
The financial picture is stark. During garden leave, she receives £17,750 (three months' salary). But the six-month non-compete adds a further delay before the £90,000 role can begin — representing £45,000 in deferred earnings. An employment solicitor reviews Sophie's contract for £400. The solicitor identifies that the clause covers all "financial data services" across the UK without reference to her specific client base or the category of information she has actually accessed. Given that her prospective employer operates in a different sub-sector of the market and that Sophie has had no contact with key strategic accounts for over eighteen months, the restriction is arguably disproportionate to any legitimate business interest.
Following a formal letter from her solicitor, the former employer agrees to reduce the non-compete from six months to two months. Sophie starts her new role four months ahead of schedule — a saving equivalent to £30,000 in deferred income, secured for a legal fee of £400.
The if/then logic: if Sophie had proceeded without legal advice and waited out the full nine months, she would have started in June 2027, nearly ten months after signing her new offer. If she had breached the clause without advice and started immediately, she would have faced potential injunction proceedings and costs of £30,000–£80,000. The £400 consultation absorbed virtually all of the risk in a single hour.
What to Do Before You Move
Whether you are moving between Premier League clubs or between rival financial technology firms, the same checklist applies before accepting a competing offer.
Read the clause carefully. Not all non-competes are equivalent. Some restrict only direct competition; others cover entire industry sectors. Some apply across the whole of the UK; others are limited to a defined radius or specific client list. The exact wording determines whether the restriction is enforceable and for how long.
Check your employer's legitimate interest. If your role does not involve access to sensitive client data, trade secrets, or specialist training that required significant employer investment, a broad non-compete clause is on legally weak ground and may not withstand challenge.
Do not assume the clause is unenforceable. Courts have enforced clearly drafted restrictions for senior professionals in recent years, particularly where confidential information is genuinely at risk. Seek professional advice before concluding you are free to act.
Understand garden leave entitlements. If placed on garden leave, you are entitled to full salary, pension contributions, and contractual benefits throughout the period. Your employer cannot unilaterally reduce these — doing so may itself amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
Negotiate at the point of departure. Post-termination restrictions are frequently waived or shortened as part of exit negotiations, particularly when the former employer wishes to avoid costly enforcement proceedings. An employment solicitor can advise on the leverage available to you at that moment — which is typically far greater than it will be once litigation has begun.
For anyone currently navigating a career transition that involves a potential restrictive covenant question, Expert Zoom connects you with qualified employment solicitors available by video consultation within 48 hours of booking.
This article provides general information about employment law in England and Wales and does not constitute legal advice. Individual circumstances vary significantly and readers should consult a qualified solicitor before taking action in connection with their own employment situation.
