A recent decision of the Hong Kong Court reaffirmed the robust approach taken by the Court in examining the enforceability of a non-compete clause in an employment context even at the interim-interim stage. A former employer has the burden of proof to adduce evidence to substantiate that a non-compete clause is reasonable and necessary for the protection of the former employer’s legitimate business interests for it to be enforceable. The Court will take a very robust approach in examining the scope of the restraint, and the specific basis of justifying a non-compete clause even at the interim-interim stage when a former employer seeks to restrain the ex-employee from joining the new employer competitor by relying on the non-compete clause in the employment agreement.

A recent decision of the Hong Kong Court reaffirmed the robust approach taken by the Court in examining the enforceability of a noncompete clause in an employment context. The Court reiterates that it will not redraft a noncompete clause for the parties, nor would it imply a term in order to save a covenant restraining an employee’s post-termination conduct.

The Hong Kong Judiciary continued to further expand the scope of remote hearings and issued various guidance notes and guidelines to facilitate the operation of remote hearings since its first initiative during the General Adjournment Period (GAP) in 2020. In response to the fifth wave of COVID-19 in early 2022, the Judiciary implemented the second GAP on 7 March 2022 and issued its latest guidance note dated 25 March 2022 on hearing outside court rooms , which took effect on 28 March 2022. This alert provides an update on the development of remote hearings in Hong Kong.