Employee duties and restrictions on competition

This overview outlines the Practice Notes in the subtopic 'Employee duties and restrictions on competition'.

All employees are under a duty of fidelity to their employer, which is also known as the duty of good faith, or of loyalty.

Fidelity is a broad concept containing a number of more specific duties, some of which overlap both with each other and with the duty of trust and confidence:

•
to behave honestly
•
not to work in competition
•
not to make a secret profit
•
to disclose information
•
not to misuse confidential information

Some employees will also owe additional, more onerous duties as a result of their being a fiduciary, or being a fiduciary in respect of some part of their duties. These may include:

•
a duty to act in the best interests of the employer, ie to act selflessly and with undivided loyalty, which in turn comprises:
1. ◦
  the duty to account for all property and profits made from the employee’s position as a fiduciary (the ‘no profits’ rule)
2. ◦
  the duty not to let their own interest and that

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Employment News

Acas publishes research urging employers to enhance neurodiversity support and training

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) has published a report highlighting the need for enhanced workplace support for neurodivergent employees. The research suggests that proactive workplace support for neurodivergent staff reduces employee turnover and improves outcomes. The research found that 15-20% of adults in the UK are neurodivergent and one case study organisation reduced staff turnover to 8% compared to the 34% national average through implementing neuroinclusive practices. The report also emphasises that diagnosis should not be required for workplace adjustments.

Employment weekly highlights—6 March 2025

This edition of Employment weekly highlights includes: (1) proposed amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, (2) the government’s responses to consultations on extending protections for zero hours workers to agency workers, Statutory Sick Pay, tackling non-compliance in the umbrella company market, creating a modern framework for industrial relations, and collective redundancy and fire and rehire, (3) a report that menopause-related employment tribunal claims have tripled since 2022, (4) an EAT judgment on whether Tesco can rely on expert evidence to support its material factor defence to the multiple equal pay claims it faces, (5) a consideration of ‘worker voice’ in modern employers by Will Winch of Mishcon de Reya, (6) dates for your diary, and (7) other news items of interest to employment practitioners.

Supreme Court confirms that embassy is not entitled to state immunity where employee’s duties fell within the normal ancillary and supportive role of administrative staff (The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Costantine)

On 6 March 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in The Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia (Cultural Bureau) v Costantine [2025] UKSC 9. In a unanimous judgment given by Lord Lloyd-Jones, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that, considering the principles in Benkharbouche v Embassy of the Republic of Sudan [2017] UKSC 62, the Employment Tribunal judge was correct in the circumstances to find that the embassy was not entitled to rely on state immunity in claims bought against it by its employee for direct discrimination. The employee’s duties at no point went beyond the normal ancillary and supportive role of administrative staff and, therefore, their employment was not an exercise of a sovereign act. While the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to give proper consideration to whether the embassy was entitled to state immunity, if the Court of Appeal had considered the issue, it would necessarily have concluded that the embassy was not entitled to immunity. Tamar Burton, barrister at Cloisters, and Joel Wallace, barrister at Littleton Chambers, both of whom were counsel in the case, provide their comments on the judgment.

DBT publishes Companies (Directors' Remuneration and Audit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

The Department for Business and Trade (DBT) has published the Companies (Directors' Remuneration and Audit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, currently undergoing parliamentary sifting as of 4 March 2025. This Statutory Instrument (SI) aims to streamline the directors’ remuneration reporting framework by removing certain overlapping EU-origin directors' remuneration reporting obligations for UK listed companies. It will also clarify specific powers of the UK audit regulator concerning overseas audits involving non-UK companies and their auditors. In addition, the regulations introduce a discretionary exemption from the prohibition of certain non-audit services, allowing audit firms that provide these services to a Public Interest Entity to tender for the audit of that entity.