A recruiter hands in their notice.
Two weeks later they’ve joined a competitor.
Soon after that, they start speaking to the same clients and candidates they worked with at your business.
At that moment most recruitment agency owners say the same thing:
“It’s fine. Our contracts have restrictive covenants.”
But here’s the uncomfortable truth.
Many restrictive covenants in recruitment employment contracts don’t stand up in court.
They may look strong on paper, but when tested legally they fail because they are too broad, poorly drafted, or simply outdated.
Quick Answer: What Typically Goes Wrong?
In practice, we see issues where:
- Contracts were never signed
- Clauses are too broad
- The same restrictions are used across all roles
- Contracts haven’t been updated after promotions
- Clauses are copied from templates
If any of these apply, your covenants may be difficult to enforce.
If your business relies on restrictive covenants to protect client relationships, candidate pipelines, and confidential information, it’s worth asking a simple question:
Would your contracts actually hold up if you had to enforce them?
Why Restrictive Covenants Matter in Recruitment
Recruitment is a relationship-driven industry.
Consultants build networks of clients, candidates, contractors, and suppliers.
When a recruiter leaves and joins a competitor, those relationships often follow.
That’s why employment contracts commonly include restrictive covenants, which are designed to protect legitimate business interests such as:
- Client relationships
- Candidate relationships
- Confidential information
- Workforce stability
However, restrictive covenants are not automatically enforceable.
Courts will only enforce them if they go no further than reasonably necessary to protect those interests.
If the clause is too broad or poorly drafted, it may be struck out completely.
Red Flags That Your Recruitment Contracts May Not Be Enforceable
If a recruiter leaves your business tomorrow, the enforceability of your restrictive covenants could depend on details hidden in the contract.
Here are some common red flags we see when reviewing recruitment employment contracts.
1. The Contract Was Never Signed
This happens more often than people realise.
A business sends the employment contract, the recruiter starts work, and nobody follows up on the signature.
While it can sometimes still be possible to rely on an unsigned contract, it creates unnecessary legal uncertainty.
If you ever need to enforce restrictive covenants, proving that the employee agreed to the terms becomes significantly harder.
2. The Restraints Are Too Broad
One of the most common reasons restrictive covenants fail is overreach.
Courts regularly strike out clauses that go further than reasonably necessary.
Examples include:
- Global restrictions for recruiters working in a local market
- Bans covering all clients of the company
- Clauses applying to candidates the recruiter never worked with
Restrictive covenants should normally focus on relationships the employee had material dealings with during the final months of employment.
3. The Clauses Were Copied from a Template
Another common issue is copy-and-paste contracts.
Generic templates are often used across an entire recruitment business without tailoring them to the specific role.
Courts look closely at whether a covenant has been drafted with the employee’s position in mind.
If the clause looks generic or excessive, that can be a warning sign that it may not be enforceable.
Restrictive Covenants Must Protect Legitimate Business Interests
The key legal principle behind restrictive covenants is straightforward.
They must protect a legitimate business interest and go no further than reasonably necessary to do so.
In recruitment, that typically means protecting relationships with clients and candidates, confidential information and databases, and the stability of the workforce.
If a covenant appears designed simply to prevent competition rather than protect these interests, it is much more likely to be challenged.
Why Recruitment Businesses Often Discover This Too Late
In many cases, recruitment agencies only discover problems with their contracts when a dispute arises.
They join a competitor.
Clients start moving.
At that point the business asks a lawyer to enforce the restrictive covenants, often leading to formal dispute resolution proceedings, only to discover that parts of the contract are unlikely to survive scrutiny.
By then the damage may already be done.
A Simple Way to Sense-Check Your Contracts
Because restrictive covenants are highly fact-specific, every recruitment business should review its employment contracts periodically.
A quick sense-check can reveal whether the restraints you are relying on are likely to stand up if challenged.
To help with that process, we’ve created a DIY Restraint Checklist designed specifically for recruitment businesses.
It highlights the most common issues we see when reviewing restrictive covenants.
Need Advice on Restrictive Covenants in Recruitment?
Restrictive covenants are only as strong as the contracts they sit in.
If you want to know whether your employment contracts would actually protect your business, it’s worth getting them reviewed properly.
recLAW specialises in legal support for recruitment businesses, including restrictive covenants, employment contracts, fee disputes, and backdoor hires.
If you want to discuss your contracts or any legal issues affecting your recruitment business, get in touch with the team at recLAW.
FAQs
What makes restrictive covenants unenforceable in the UK?
Restrictive covenants may be unenforceable if they are too broad, poorly drafted, or do not protect a legitimate business interest such as client relationships or confidential information.
How long do restrictive covenants last?
The duration depends on the employee’s role and influence. In many recruitment roles, covenants of around six months are common, although longer periods may sometimes be justified.
Do restrictive covenants stop recruiters joining competitors?
Sometimes. However, non-compete clauses are among the hardest restrictive covenants to enforce and must be carefully drafted to be legally valid.
