Insist that employees who could harm you in this way sign a ‘restraint of trade’ contract up front – such restraints are valid and enforceable “unless they are unreasonable and thus contrary to public policy”.  Although in general parties are held to their contracts, our law subjects this to the need to balance the competing rights of the employer against the right of the departing employee to work and to earn a living.

The High Court recently confirmed that any restraint of trade that is unreasonably wide - in either geographical area or time period - will not be enforced.  At best it will be reduced in scope, but, as in the case in question, it could well be entirely nullified.

In addition, the Court considered it inevitable that “as the values of dignity, equality and freedom which underlie our Constitution take root, greater weight will be given to the right of every citizen to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely and that the courts will look more critically at restraint of trade agreements where, for example, they were concluded between parties whose respective bargaining powers were substantially disparate, where the quid pro quo is either non-existent or no more than the opportunity of employment and, where the attempt to enforce the restraint owes more to an aversion to fair competition than the protection of any legitimate employer interest.”

Firstly, have your restraint of trade agreements professionally drawn in accordance with those principles.

Then, enforce them consistently – in the case in question, the Court considered it relevant that the employer had, in previous instances involving other employees who left its employ, not taken any action against them.