In this article, Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co partner Jonathan Chamberlain ponders the implications of former Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson's employment contract

A lawyer should never, ever (ever) advise on a document without having read it.

Oh what the heck. I am just too fascinated by this story in The Telegraph about restrictive covenants preventing Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond from moving to ITV. Anyway, this isn't advice, it's a blog, so I can be as ignorant as I like. And it's Top Gear, so ditto.

If, like me, you've run out of free clicks on The Telegraph website, then this extract sums it up:

"The trio have been approached to make a car show for ITV. But a clause in their old contracts is said to block them from hosting a car show on a UK channel for two years. They are now faced with a choice: wait until April 2017 or sign a deal with a non-UK broadcaster, such as Netflix. "Basically they could make a show for ITV, but not one about cars," a source told the Daily Mirror. It means Netflix or Amazon are favourites to sign up the team. There is a feeling that if they wait two years it gives Chris Evans a chance to steal a march on them and get his new Top Gear show up and running, which means he would be settled in by then."

Before I go on, full disclosure. I am tall, fat, white, middle-aged, loud, wear jeans with a sports jacket and drive a flash car. Of course I like Top Gear. That said, and equally of course, Clarkson had to go. What sort of employment lawyer would I be if I didn't think you should – must – be fired for hitting a colleague?

Anyway, back to The Telegraph. You have to wonder who is the source. It's clearly someone who's read the contract, or is at least well-informed as to its contents. That suggests that they were equally well-informed as to what the trio can do now, which means they've seen their legal advice.

The interest for me is in the apparent geographical scope of the restriction. To paraphrase (it's a blog: I can do what I like, remember) for a post-termination restraint to work, it must protect a legitimate business interest and go no further than is necessary to protect that interest.

It's easy to see the BBC ticking the first box – Top Gear is a brand worth squillions and they are seeking to protect the goodwill in the brand rather than letting it walk out the door with the presenters. But how far does the restraint go?

The Telegraph says "UK channel for two years". Why UK? Top Gear is watched by 350 million in 214 territories. That's a lot of fat chaps in a lot of places. Wouldn't a global restriction be necessary to protect the BBC's interest? It's worth £50m a year worldwide.

Plus, if the trio are free to sign for Netflix, they can appear in any UK home with broadband. And would Sky count as a UK channel, broadcast as it is from inner-space?

Were I Auntie, I'd be more worried about those sorts of channels than I would ITV. I remember when Morecambe and Wise went there in the late 70s. It was never as good. Nor was it with Des Lynam, or even Adrian Chiles. For some reason BBC to ITV never works. A jinx is much better protection than a covenant (and about as reliable if you find yourself in the Queen's Bench, but that's another story).

Mind you, if I'd been Auntie's draftsman, I might have balked at writing in a global restriction in an employment contract for a TV show. No doubt he or she could see the force of it: there's YouTube as well as Netflix and other streaming services to consider, but you'd be pushing the boundaries of the law to align them with the new ways of viewing and would it be worth risking the UK terrestrial protection to gain the world.

I might – might – have been a bit more bullish if this restriction was part of the deal when Clarkson and his producer friend Andy Wilman sold their rights in the show back to the BBC, as covenants in commercial agreements are construed more flexibly than those in employment contracts. However, even then I would have sensed I'd have been a bit out there.

Still, I find myself much more curious as to what the clause says and much more anxious to see it litigated than I would be to watch a new episode, whoever presented it. And on that bombshell…

(sorry).

Jonathan Chamberlain is an employment partner at Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co.