Facts
The case concerns an employment contract between a dentist (plaintiff) and a dental assistant (defendant). The parties had agreed on a non-compete clause, according to which the defendant was not allowed to engage in any competing activity within a radius of 1 km for 3 years after the termination of the employment relationship. The plaintiff terminated the defendant's employment without notice after the latter had taken over the practice of another dentist in the vicinity.
The Federal Court had to assess whether the agreed non-compete clause was admissible. It concluded that the non-compete clause was invalid despite the written agreement and the defendant's insight into the plaintiff's client base. The decisive factor was that the personal skills and the relationship of trust between a dentist and their patients are of central importance. Therefore, the defendant could not solicit the plaintiff's patients solely on the basis of his knowledge of their medical history, but only on the basis of his own personal qualities. Thus, there was no causal link between the insight into the client base and the possibility of substantial damage to the plaintiff, which is a prerequisite for the admissibility of a non-compete clause according to the law.
Considerations
The Federal Court confirmed the decision of the lower instance, according to which the non-compete clause is invalid. It stated that in the case of liberal professions such as the dental profession, the personal relationship with the clientele is of central importance. Therefore, a dental assistant cannot impose a non-compete clause on their…