ExplainedOther/ 4 August 2026/ 4 min read
The Court of Appeal's 1991 decision in Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas [1991] IRLR 214 established the modern UK test for enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment contracts: covenants must protect a legitimate proprietary interest and be no wider than reasonably necessary. The case remains foundational for UK sales restrictive covenants in 2026.
The Court of Appeal's 1991 decision in Office Angels Ltd v Rainer-Thomas [1991] IRLR 214 established the modern UK test for enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. The case remains foundational for UK sales restrictive covenants in 2026, sitting alongside the more recent Tillman severance doctrine.
This piece walks through what Office Angels decided and how its test applies to UK sales restrictive covenants today.
Office Angels was a recruitment agency. Two employees left to set up a competing recruitment agency. Their employment contracts contained restrictive covenants prohibiting them from soliciting Office Angels' clients for six months post-termination.
The Court of Appeal considered whether the covenants were enforceable. The court restated the modern test: a restrictive covenant is enforceable only where:
On the facts, the court held the covenants were too wide because they covered all clients of Office Angels rather than just clients the departing employees had actually worked with. The restriction protected an interest wider than the legitimate proprietary interest the law allows.
The case is foundational because it crystallised the UK approach to restrictive covenant enforceability: the legitimate-interest test and the reasonableness test, applied together.
UK courts recognise three primary legitimate interests an employer may protect via restrictive covenant:
Customer connections. Where an employee has built relationships with the employer's customers, the employer can protect those relationships post-termination through non-solicitation covenants.
Trade secrets and confidential information. Where the employee has had access to confidential information, the employer can protect against the disclosure or use of it through confidentiality and non-compete covenants.
Workforce stability. Where the employee has had access to colleagues, the employer can protect against the systematic poaching of the workforce through non-solicitation-of-staff covenants.
A covenant that doesn't link to one of these three interests is unenforceable regardless of its drafting.
Once a legitimate interest is identified, the covenant must be no wider than reasonably necessary in three dimensions:
Scope. A non-solicitation of 'all clients' is wider than necessary where the legitimate interest is connections built with specific clients. Narrower drafting (clients the employee personally dealt with in the last 12 months) is more enforceable.
Signal
AI tooling has begun to reshape how UK B2B sellers practise the methodologies they have been trained on. Specific patterns: AI-augmented MEDDPICC scoring against deal data, AI-driven discovery question suggestions, AI-summarised call analysis against methodology checkpoints, AI-generated business cases and value framing. The methodologies themselves are largely unchanged; the practice of them is being rebuilt around AI augmentation.
Explained
There is no universally best sales methodology. The right choice depends on segment, deal size, cycle length, buyer sophistication, team experience, and existing infrastructure. A practitioner walkthrough of the choice criteria, with honest assessment of where each major methodology fits.
Explained
GAP Selling (Keenan, 2018) is a problem-centric sales methodology that emphasises deep discovery of the gap between the buyer's current state and desired future state. The methodology pushes hard against feature-led pitching: the seller must understand the buyer's situation more thoroughly than competing methodologies typically demand. Adopted by a meaningful share of UK B2B SaaS sales teams since 2020.
Geographic area. Where relevant, a non-compete covering 'the UK' may be reasonable; one covering 'EMEA' typically is not, unless the employee's role was genuinely EMEA-wide.
Duration. Six to twelve months is the typical enforceable range for IC roles; up to twenty-four months may be enforceable for senior leadership where the legitimate interest justifies it. Beyond that, courts increasingly resist.
Most UK sales restrictive covenants address customer connections. A typical sales non-solicitation covenant will be enforceable where:
A non-compete (full prohibition on working for competitors) faces more scrutiny because the legitimate proprietary interest is narrower. Non-competes for sales hires are more likely to be enforced when the role involved access to genuine trade secrets or strategic information beyond customer connections; less likely when the role was purely customer-facing.
Three patterns of over-broad UK sales covenant drafting:
'Any customer of the employer'. Per Office Angels, too wide. Narrow to customers the employee personally worked with.
'Any business competing with the employer'. Often too wide for non-competes; narrower drafting (specifically named competitors, or specific role types) is more enforceable.
'For 24 months post-termination'. Often too long for IC roles. 6-12 months is the typical enforceable range.
Tillman v Egon Zehnder [2019] UKSC 32 (covered in a separate piece) addresses what happens when a covenant is over-broad: severance may save the rest of the covenant if the over-broad limb is cleanly removable. Office Angels addresses whether the covenant is enforceable at all.
The two work together. Office Angels asks whether the covenant clears the legitimate-interest and reasonableness tests. Tillman asks, where part of the covenant is unenforceable, whether the rest can be saved.
A covenant that fails the Office Angels test has no Tillman-saved remnant. A covenant that clears Office Angels but has a single over-broad limb may be saved by Tillman. Drafters need both tests in mind.
For UK sales employers:
For UK sales employees:
This is editorial coverage of UK case law, not legal advice. Consult an employment solicitor for your specific covenant.