ExplainedOther/ 1 August 2026/ 4 min read
The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Tillman v Egon Zehnder restated UK law on the severance of unenforceable provisions in restrictive covenants. For UK sales hires, it changed how the 'blue-pencil' doctrine applies and what employers can recover from over-broad covenant drafting. A practitioner walkthrough.
The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd [2019] UKSC 32 restated UK law on the severance of unenforceable provisions in restrictive covenants. For UK sales hires the case is foundational: it changed how the 'blue-pencil' doctrine applies and what employers can recover from over-broad covenant drafting.
This piece is a practitioner walkthrough of what Tillman decided, what it changed, and what UK sales-side practice should look like in 2026.
Mary-Caroline Tillman was a senior employee at Egon Zehnder, an executive search firm. Her contract included a non-compete restricting her from being 'directly or indirectly engaged or concerned or interested in' any competitor for six months post-termination. She left and joined a competitor; Egon Zehnder sought an injunction.
The Court of Appeal held the words 'or interested in' were too wide (they would prevent the employee from holding even a small shareholding in any public competitor) and therefore the entire non-compete was unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed: the offending words could be severed under the 'blue-pencil' test, and the remainder of the covenant was enforceable.
The Court restated the test for severance:
This restatement is the modern UK position on covenant severance.
Pre-Tillman, employers were uncertain whether over-broad drafting in any limb of a covenant would render the entire covenant unenforceable. Some Court of Appeal authority suggested it would. Tillman confirmed it does not, provided the three conditions above are met.
The practical effect for UK sales-side employment law:
Employers: gained back some lost ground. Over-broad drafting of a single limb (e.g. 'any competitor anywhere in the world') no longer automatically kills the entire covenant if the offending limb can be cleanly severed.
Employees: lost some defensive scope. The argument 'the covenant is too wide therefore wholly void' is harder to run successfully in 2026.
Drafters: the message is mixed. Severance is available but courts continue to scrutinise whether the three conditions are met. Drafters who rely on severance to save sloppy drafting risk having entire covenants struck down where the offending wording isn't cleanly removable.
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.
Sales restrictive covenants in 2026 typically include:
Each can have one or more over-broad limbs. The Tillman doctrine means a non-compete that, for example, prohibits work for 'any business competing with the employer in the UK or any other jurisdiction' might have 'or any other jurisdiction' severed and the UK-only restriction enforced. A non-solicitation covering 'any client of the employer' might have its scope narrowed to clients the employee actually worked with.
The defensive position from the employee side: argue that the offending wording cannot be cleanly severed because removing it changes the character of the covenant. The further the offending limb sits from the bargain the parties intended, the stronger this argument.
Three principles for UK sales contract drafters post-Tillman:
1. Draft each limb at the boundary, not beyond it. Drafting that intends to be saved by Tillman severance is dangerous. The cleaner approach: draft what is reasonable and stop.
2. Make limbs structurally separable. Where multiple restrictions are bundled into one limb, courts may find them inseparable. Where each restriction sits in its own clause with its own consideration, severance is cleaner.
3. Document the legitimate proprietary interest the covenant protects. Severance addresses scope; reasonableness addresses whether the covenant is enforceable at all. The Office Angels test (legitimate proprietary interest, no wider than reasonably necessary) sits alongside Tillman, not instead of it.
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.