1. 该等竞业限制承诺的合理性和可强制执行性应在1997年签订合同时就应予以考虑。那时候的Thornton只是一名实习生，之前并无行业经验或与客户接触的经历。法院认为，在那个时候要求Thornton作出竞业限制的承诺是不合适或不可强制执行的。即使后来Thornton步步走向高层，也不能改变他在那一年作作承诺的不合适或不可执行。法院认为，应站在竞业限制承诺设置时的时点来考虑竞业限制承诺是否具有可强制执行性。

2. 法院还认为，这些竞业限制的承诺宽泛得不太合理，限制了Thornton在雇佣合同终止后与公司的任何客户进行交易。根据相关证据，Thornton接触的客户只代表了公司2%的营业收入，因此，限制他与之前没有直接接触过的98%进行接触是不合理的。

3. 公司主张，雇佣合同里有类似“如果出现Thornton在雇佣合同终止后的六个月内与公司竞争的情形，只要他遵守竞业限制的条款，公司会支付他一定的对价”的条款，因此，该等竞业限制是合理的。然而，法院则认为，雇主“买断”竞业限制(restraint of      trade)的行为，有违公共政策，因此是无效的！

由此可见，英国法院主要是从“合理性”的角度来看待竞业限制条款的，即reasonably necessary for the proper protection of the protectable interest.

 ◆◆◆Pickwell & Nicholls v Pro Cam CP Ltd◆◆◆ 

本来以为事情就这么到此为止了。然而，在随后的Pickwell & Nicholls v Pro Cam CP Ltd[2016] EWHC 1304 (QB)案件（下称“P案”）中，原告Pickwell 和 Nicholls的律师就援引了上述B案，但是法官认为，在签合同的时候各方都心知肚明，实习期只是短暂的初始阶段，假以时日原告将会羽翼丰满成为农学家，在公司Pro Cam那里会有长期的未来。这里面有个背景是，公司在任的几位农学家在未来三年内会陆续退休，他们对原告有所栽培和希冀。

B案和P案为何如此迥异？有评论说，那是因为B案涉及的竞业限制条款写得没P案的好。其实不无道理，因为B案的法官也说"… it was simply not reasonably necessary for the protection of the customer connection for Bartholomews to have imposed such a wide ranging covenant on the Respondent. If the clause had provided that the Respondent could not, for 6 months, deal with or solicit customers with whom he had dealt for a period of time before the termination of his employment that would have been sufficient."（笔者译：Bartholomews对被告设置了如此宽泛的承诺来保护其所谓的客户关系根本就无合理必要性。如果条款约定在6个月内被告不能交往或招徕其在雇佣协议终止之前打过交道的客户，这就足够了）

◆◆Restrictive covenants条款之赏析◆◆ 

B案所涉限制性条款

10. COMPANY CONFIDENTIALITY

Employees should not, during the continuance of their employment, or at any time thereafter, divulge any of the details of the business rf trade information relating to Bartholomews (Holdings) Ltd or any subsidiary Company, acquired during their employmentbyt the Company, or any person, firm, or other organisation.

10.2 PROTECTION OF KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED DUE TO THE COMPANY'S SPECIALISED BUSINESS

Employees shall not, for a period of six months immediately following the termination of their employment be engaged on work, supplying goods or services of a similar nature which compete with the Company to the Company's customers, with a trade competitor within the Company's trading area, (which is West and East Sussex, Kent, Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset) or on their won account without prior approval from the Company. In this unlikely event, the employee's full benefits will be paid during this period."

 ◆◆◆   P案所涉限制性条款 ◆◆◆   

"You will not from the date of termination of your employment either on your own account (whether directly or indirectly) or as a representative employee, partner, director, financier, shareholder or agent of any other person, firm, company or organisation:- …

… for a period of 6 months have any dealings in the sale or supply of any relevant goods or services to any relevant customer …[the 'non-dealing' covenant]

… for a period of 6 months canvass or solicit order for any relevant goods or services from any relevant customer …." [the 'non-solicitation' covenant]

"… 'relevant goods or services' are goods or services which are the same as or of a similar kind to those which in the period of 12 months before termination of your employment have been dealt in or supplied by you in the course of your duties for the Company or group company

… 'relevant customer' means any person, firm, company or organisation with whom you have dealt in the period of 12 months before the termination of your employment and who as a result of your dealings has bought goods or services from or been supplied with goods or services by the Company or any Group company."

 ◆◆◆   文献参考  ◆◆◆   

Bartholomews Agri Food-v-Thornton [2016] IRLR 432的判决书原文见http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/648.html

Pickwell & Nicholls v Pro Cam CP Ltd[2016] EWHC 1304 (QB)的判决书原文详见http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/1304.html&query=(2016])+AND+(EWHC)+AND+(1304)+AND+((QB)