In Capgemini India Private Ltd v Krishnan, former employees of Capgemini, following termination of their employment, gave a contractual undertaking to observe post-termination restrictive covenants set out in their contracts of employment. When Capgemini sought to enforce these restrictive covenants by means of an injunction, the employees argued that the underlying restrictive covenant was actually unenforceable.
The High Court refused the application for an injunction on the basis that, on the facts, damages would be an adequate remedy. The case is interesting, however, as it considered the relevance of a restrictive covenant being restated in an undertaking to whether it should be enforced.
In summary, giving an undertaking to abide by a restrictive covenant is not a bar to later arguing that it is unenforceable, but the burden will be on the party seeking to depart from its original undertaking to show the particular grounds on which they should be entitled to do so.
Capgemini India Private Ltd and another v Krishnan and others  EWHC 1092 (QB)