Author: Tabitha McDowell

Grandparents play a significant role in most children’s early lives. A 2024 survey by the Education Authority showed that 32% of children in Northern Ireland aged 0 to 11 used a grandparent or a relative to provide childcare, allowing grandparents to build a vital and emotional role in their grandchildren’s lives.

However, if the parents’ relationship should break down, it may be surprising to learn that, despite having such a close relationship with their grandchildren, grandparents do not have the same legal framework as parents. If a grandparent’s contact should stop because of the breakdown of a relationship, the law does not guarantee contact – but that’s not to say grandparents are without rights.

Grandparents would be encouraged to try reinstating contact by communicating directly with the parents or, if this is not possible or successful, engaging in family-based mediation. This could be a quicker and cheaper method, and less adversarial. A more formal approach could be a letter from a solicitor, suggesting proposals for contact. Quite often, an amicable agreement can be reached quickly using this avenue.

If these attempts to resolve the issue should fail, grandparents can make an application to the Family Proceedings Court for contact. It is important to be aware that grandparents must make an initial application for ‘leave’ from the Court first. This means that grandparents must first ask the courts permission to make an application to court in the first place. If the Court grants permission, then the grandparents can proceed before the court with an application to have contact with their grandchildren. The Court will consider several factors before deciding what contact should look like, including the children’s existing relationship with the grandparent, the children’s emotional needs and any risk of harm. If the children are old enough, their views will also be taken into consideration. A similar approach is taken if the grandparents are hoping to take over primary care of the children; this application would be for residence, instead of contact.

Practical advice

• Consider mediation or solicitor intervention early
• Seek legal advice before making an application
• Focus on the child’s welfare, not adult disputes

While grandparents do not have automatic legal rights to contact, Courts generally recognise the value of the relationship between children and their grandparents, especially when that relationship has been stable and positive.

Edwards Solicitors provide advice and assistance on all children matters including residence, contact, prohibited steps orders, specific issue orders, issues with Social Services, child abduction and adoption. If you wish to make an appointment to discuss any of these matters, please contact the Family Department on 028 9040 8790 or email cmcgee@edwardssolicitors.com.

We are very pleased to have received compensation payments for over 5000 of our clients in the ongoing PSNI Data Breach Group Action, totalling almost £40 million, as reported by the BBC and other media:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy2gwvnqq2o

A universal offer of £7,500 was made by the PSNI following significant hard work and negotiation after the data breach in August 2023.  The data breach group action has been unprecedented in this jurisdiction in terms of both scale and complexity.

We have helped more than 5,000 clients and we are happy to achieve a resolution to the case for so many of our clients.  We are delighted to be able to bring our clients some closure in this matter and we are grateful to them for their patience throughout.

Our focus now turns to our remaining clients who have not accepted the universal offer, and we will continue to work hard to ensure that they are fairly compensated for the impact of the data breach.

If you are one of our clients in the data breach group action and have any queries at all about what is happening, please contact us by email at PSNIDataBreach@edwardssolicitors.com

If you are not a client but have been affected by the data breach and wish to discuss whether we might help you, please contact us at the email address above.

Universal Offer Made

We are happy to confirm that we have now received a universal offer from the Chief Constable of the PSNI, open to all plaintiffs in the ongoing group action.  We are delighted that after more than 2 years of hard work and considerable patience from our clients, the Chief Constable has finally been able to make an offer of compensation.

We will communicate directly with our clients on the detail of the universal offer and our advice on whether the offer might be right for them.

For many officers and staff, there will be considerable relief, and they will want to accept the offer and put this very unfortunate episode behind them.  For those who have been particularly badly affected, the offer may not be suitable and their cases will continue.

What is the next step for me?

If you are registered with Edwards in the group action, you will receive details of the offer and advice on whether the offer might be right for you, along with details of how to accept the offer if you wish to do so.

Can I still join the claim?

Yes, you can still join the claim. If you are a PFNI member, please contact the PFNI to register with them and they will pass your name to us for addition to the claim, and send to you a questionnaire for completion and return.

If you are not a PFNI member please contact us directly.

How do I contact you if I have any queries?

If you have any queries, please contact us via email at psnidatabreach@edwardsandcompany.co.uk.

It can be an extremely stressful time considering the arrangements for children of the family after separating. This period of uncertainty can be difficult to navigate, both personally and in a sensitive way for the children. This can lead to disagreements about who will live where and how much time each parent gets to spend with their children.

The main question is usually – where will the children live? There is unfortunately no one-size-fits-all answer to this question as every family is different, but it is important to keep what is best for the children as top priority when trying to work this out. If one parent has been the main caregiver throughout the relationship, then consideration should be given to them staying in the family home with the children and the other parent try to find alternative temporary accommodation until proper plans can be agreed on what will happen to the family home. A move for the primary care giver and the children out of the family home to rented accommodation may be more beneficial for the children, for example if the property is closer to school or grandparents who help with childcare. Perhaps your separation is amicable and living ‘together apart’ is something you can navigate together in a respectful way until a final decision can be made.

If you are having difficulty agreeing what life with the children looks like after a separation, or if you are worried that your partner may not be putting the children’s needs first, it is important to seek independent legal advice for your options moving forward. It may be the case that an agreement can be reached through solicitors’ offices, or after engaging in mediation with your partner, which would eliminate the need for Court proceedings.

If an amicable agreement between you is not possible and Court proceedings should become necessary, a solicitor from our Family Department can provide you with comprehensive advice on the Court process, including the advantages or disadvantages of any court application and the associated costs.

Edwards Solicitors provide advice and assistance on all children matters including residence, contact, prohibited steps orders, specific issue orders, issues with Social Services, child abduction and adoption. If you wish to make an appointment to discuss any of these matters, please contact the Family Department on 028 9040 8790 or email cmcgee@edwardssolicitors.com.

If you have received a letter from a solicitor on behalf of your ex-partner asking for contact with the children and giving you a timeframe to respond, it is important not to ignore it.

Choosing to ignore the letter may result in Court proceedings being unnecessarily issued against you. At that point, you will have no choice but to engage in those proceedings, which can be both lengthy and costly.

A common misconception is that responding to a solicitor’s letter automatically means you are going to Court. This is not the case. An amicable agreement between you and your ex-partner is absolutely achievable through your solicitors, without either of you going anywhere near the Court.

Therefore, if you have received a solicitor’s letter, don’t panic. Make an appointment with a solicitor and bring the letter with you.

At Edwards Solicitors, we take pride in our pragmatic and sensible approach to child contact issues. During your initial consultation with our Family Department, we will discuss the contents of the letter, the practicality of the proposals outlined, and your own views and proposals for contact. If necessary, we will also explain the Court process, the merits of going to Court, and the likely costs involved. We will also assess your eligibility for legal aid.

Edwards Solicitors provide advice and assistance on all children’s matters, including residence, contact, prohibited steps orders, specific issue orders, issues involving Social Services, child abduction and adoption. If you wish to make an appointment to discuss any of these matters, please contact the Family Department on 028 9040 8790 or email cmcgee@edwardssolicitors.com.

The Case

In Tom James UK Ltd v Potter [2025] EWHC 2873, the High Court in England rejected a tailoring company’s attempt to enforce a 12‑month non‑competition clause against a salesperson, a former employee.

Tom James UK, part of a US tailoring group, sells made‑to‑measure suits through travelling consultants. Mr Potter joined the London branch in 2017 and resigned in May 2025 after nearly eight years, citing dissatisfaction with management and product quality. The company alleged he planned to compete and relied on a restrictive covenant introduced in 2022, which lengthened the non‑compete from six months to a full year and removed the previous London‑only restriction, making it apply globally.

The company alleged that Mr Potter had breached his duties of good faith and confidentiality, arguing that his departure threatened client relationships and sensitive business information. It claimed he had access to confidential client lists, pricing data, and tailoring records, and asked the Court to declare that he had broken his contract. No damages were sought; the sole purpose of the claim was to enforce the non‑compete clause designed to keep him out of the industry for twelve months. Mr Potter denied the allegations, maintaining that his role was confined to sales, without managerial responsibilities or access to strategic trade secrets.

The Court’s Findings

The High Court rejected the employer’s arguments, ruling that the non‑compete clause was far too wide. It applied globally, covered every employee regardless of seniority, and even prevented working “in any capacity” for a competitor, from sales to non‑sales roles.

The judge dismissed the claim and held the covenant unenforceable, noting:

• No breach of duty: Mr Potter had not solicited clients, misused information, or acted in bad faith.
• Disproportionate duration: A 12‑month restriction was disproportionate for a mid‑level salesperson with a short notice period.
• Overly broad scope: The clause applied to “any capacity” with a competitor, even non‑sales roles.
• Insufficient justification: The employer failed to justify why 12 months was required, particularly when other staff had joined competitors after shorter periods without issue.

As a result, Mr Potter was free to continue working in the tailoring industry.

Why it matters

Restrictive covenants are lawful in principle, but they will only be enforced if they are reasonable. Courts expect restrictive covenants to protect genuine business interests, such as safeguarding confidential information or preserving customer relationships, and to be no broader than necessary in terms of duration, geography, or scope.

Think of it like tailoring, a bespoke suit must fit the wearer. A covenant must be cut to fit the employee’s responsibilities.

Guidance for Employers

• Use broad restrictions sparingly and reserve them for senior staff with strategic responsibilities or access to sensitive information.
• Limit clauses by geography, role, and duration.
• Match restrictions to notice periods to maintain proportionality.
• Document the rationale when drafting covenants.
• Don’t apply identical clauses to all staff
• Don’t assume courts will enforce long restrictions without evidence.

Conclusion

This judgment is a clear warning against “off‑the‑shelf” non‑compete clauses. Employers should ensure restrictions are proportionate, evidence‑based, and tailored to the individual’s role. Employees, meanwhile, should be aware of how these clauses may affect their future career choices before signing.

Non‑competes can work, but only when they’re a good fit.