262
With regard to the former test, I think it clear that what is meant is that for a restraint to be reasonable in the interests of the parties it must afford no more than adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is …”
“The restraint will be reasonable only if its duration is no longer than necessary –
本文討論的限制條款（restrictive covenant），是指僱員與僱主之間的限制條款，不是指在買賣交易中，一方對另一方的限制條款。
一、限制條款的一般內容
一般來說，限制條款包括僱主限制僱員在某段時間內不得：
-
在某地區內從事與僱主競爭的工作；
-
搶走僱主的顧客或員工；
-
使用或洩露公司的商業秘密；
-
或發生衝突等。
然而，這些條文有效嗎？
二、限制條款的法律效力：必須「合理」才有效
一般的僱傭合約條款，不論是否合理，只要沒有抵觸《僱傭條例》，不是違例條文，即為有效。但限制條款是要合理的，才有法律效力。
「合理」，包括對雙方合理（reasonable）以及合乎公眾利益（public interest）。一旦被定為不合理（例如限制時間過長），法庭不會判定該條款有效／不予執行（圖片原文在此處被截斷）。
三、Kao Lee & Yip v Edwards：合理性的闡釋（引文節錄）
在 Kao Lee & Yip v Edwards [1993] 1 HKC 314 (CA) 一案中，就「合理」的解釋如下（原文節錄）：
-
Covenants in restraint of trade are unenforceable unless the covenant is reasonable in the interests of the parties and in the public interest. The onus is upon the plaintiff to establish that the covenant is reasonable and if this is proved, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it is not in the public interest. Reasonableness was explained in Herbert Morris Limited v Saxelby [1916] AC 688 at 707 where Lord Parker of Waddington had this to say:-
“To be reasonable in the interests of the parties the restraint must afford adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is imposed; to be reasonable in the interests of the public it must be in no way injurious to the public.
With regard to the former test, I think it clear that what is meant is that for a restraint to be reasonable in the interests of the parties it must afford no more than adequate protection to the party in whose favour it is …”
（……下文於圖片中被截去）
四、例子：受薪律師條款、議價能力不對等與「期限」準則
在案中，身為受薪律師（salaried partner）的被告受制於一限制條款：該律師不得在離職後 5 年內，向原告律師行在該律師離職前 3 年內的顧客招生意。該條款是根據 Bridge v Deacons [1984] 1 AC 705 一案的字眼而訂立。在 Bridge v Deacons 一案中，是合夥人間的爭議，法院判決該限制條款有效。
但在 Kao Lee & Yip v Edwards 一案中，因為被告人實質為僱員，原告人與被告人地位非對等（unequal bargaining power）（圖片在此附近有被截斷的語句）。
關於限制條款「時間長短」的準則，判詞第 28 段有說明（原文節錄）：
…restrictions will be enforced if the protection sought is reasonably necessary to prevent some personal influence over customers being abused in order to entice them away see Faccenda Chicken Limited v Fowler [1986] ICR 297 per Neill L.J. at p.310F. My attention was also drawn to Ho Wing-cheong and Ors. v Graham Margot and Ann. [1991] 1 HKLR 245 where at pp.249 and 250 Godfrey J. said:-
“The restraint will be reasonable only if its duration is no longer than necessary –
(1) for the employer to put a new man on the job and for the new employee to demonstrate his effectiveness to customers; and
(2) to prevent an employee who has quit the territory from returning to acquire the employer’s business.”
而在 Ho Wing-cheong and Ors. v Graham Margot and Ann. [1991] 1 HKLR 245 的另一段引文中（圖片節錄）：
“…I have no doubt that in Hong Kong in 1985 the plaintiffs did not need a restriction of 3 years to achieve their legitimate objects. One year would have been ample to break the connection of Mr Margot with the plaintiffs clients for a sufficient period to let the next man obtain the connection”
五、其他考慮因素（僱員所得利益、對生計影響）
此外，僱員得到什麼好處來交換接受限制，也會在考慮之列，例如：僱員薪金是否較高、受僱時是否收受僱主的金錢獎勵、或是否受到僱主特別栽培等。
在判定限制條款是否有效時，該條款對僱員的影響亦是重要考慮；如果該條款會令僱員無法維持生計，則該條款很可能無效。
