District Court Zeeland-West-Brabant (Breda location), 25 October 2023, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2023:7597.
The District Court Zeeland-West-Brabant recently dealt with a claim for strict compliance with a non-compete clause by an employer. The employee had breached the clause by operating his own sole proprietorship in a specialist field of his former employer.
Facts
On 4 October 2016, the employee joined a secondment and recruitment agency as a Supply Chain Consultant. On 2 October 2017, his contract was extended for an indefinite period. His new employment contract included a non-compete clause and a penalty clause. During his employment, he was trained into an independent consultant through an intensive onboarding programme and external courses, the costs of which were borne by the employer.
The employee’s contract ended on 1 May 2023, and on 24 March 2023 he received a settlement agreement. Article 6 of that settlement agreement confirmed that the non-compete clause in article 12 of the employment contract remained fully in force. The employer argued that during his employment the employee had acquired specific, competitively sensitive information and built a relationship of trust with clients in a niche market. The employer had a compelling interest in preventing competitors from improperly gaining access to that information.
The employee defended himself by arguing that the employer had acted in a seriously culpable manner in ending the employment relationship, and that the clause had become more onerous for him as a result. His business is based in the same city as his former employer and focuses on labour intermediary services and recruitment and selection, directly competing with his former employer’s activities.
Ruling
The subdistrict court ruled that the non-compete clause had, in effect, been re-agreed in the settlement agreement. In the court’s view, the clause formed part of an overall package within the settlement agreement, to which the employee had consented. Earlier circumstances could therefore no longer be relied upon to challenge it. The non-compete clause therefore remained valid.
Conclusion
The subdistrict court confirmed that the non-compete clause had been validly agreed between the parties, and that the employee had breached it by working in a specialist field covered by the clause since 1 May 2023. The employer’s claim for compliance with the non-compete clause was therefore granted.
This case underlines the importance of recording clear agreements on a non-compete clause. Do you have questions about this topic? Please feel free to contact one of our employment lawyers, without obligation.
Click here for the full ruling (in Dutch).
