Fixing lazy contracts will be more effective than banning non-compete clauses: Jodie Hill

I understand why. Every week I see restrictions that should never have been written.

A 12-month ban on a receptionist. A clinician told she can't work within 50 miles. A junior hairdresser warned she'll be sued if she joins the salon down the road.

Most of these clauses would collapse the moment a judge looked at them. They don't need to survive in court. They just need to scare people.

But a blanket ban is the wrong answer to a real problem.

The law on non-competes isn't broken. A restriction is only enforceable if it protects a genuine business interest and goes no further than necessary.

That's a sensible test. The problem is that hardly anyone applies it.

Clauses are copied from template to template, handed to every new starter regardless of their role, and never explained. Increasingly, they're being generated by AI tools that produce clauses that look polished but have no grasp of the business, the role or English law.

Ban non-competes, and that behaviour won't disappear. It will move. Employers will reach for six-month notice periods and long garden leave, which can keep someone out of work for longer.

Senior staff will be moved into contractor or partnership arrangements to sidestep the rules. Non-solicitation clauses will be stretched to do the same job. The worker who felt trapped before will feel just as trapped, only now the trap will be harder to see.

Meanwhile, the businesses with a genuine need will lose out.

A Leeds tech start-up with no patents, whose value sits in a handful of people and their know-how, has a legitimate reason to protect itself for a few months.

So does a firm whose sales director holds every key client relationship. A ban treats them the same as the salon chain trying to stop a junior stylist moving on.

What would actually work? Target the misuse. Restrict non-competes in low-paid and low-risk roles, where they are hardest to justify. Make employers explain why each restriction is needed. Require a separate signature and a plain English summary, so people know what they're agreeing to before they start, not when they're trying to leave.

And look at all post-termination restrictions together, so the problem isn't simply moved elsewhere.

Employers shouldn't wait for the consultation.

If your contracts contain a one-size-fits-all non-compete, it is probably unenforceable already.

Take advice on each role. Don't let a template or an AI tool draft something you may one day need to rely on.

The non-compete isn't the villain here. Laziness is.

Let's fix that, not throw out a tool that good businesses use fairly.

For practical guidance on what the reforms could mean for your business, read Thrive Law's full analysis on our website.

Jodie Hill is Founder and Managing Partner of Thrive Law