On 15 May 2025, the Chambéry Court of Appeal (judgment no. 23/01556) handed down an important decision in employment law. It confirmed that a company may produce a private investigator’s report as evidence before the labour court.
In this case, the company Ergalis France accused a former employee of breaching a non-compete clause. To support its position, it instructed Agora Détectives. The Court ruled the investigation admissible, proportionate, and essential to ensuring a fair trial.
The non-compete clause: a vital safeguard for businesses
Often overlooked or underestimated, the non-compete clause is a powerful legal tool. It prevents an employee, after leaving a company, from engaging in competing activities that could harm their former employer.
For the clause to be valid, it must:
- be limited in time,
- apply within a specific geographical area,
- protect the company’s legitimate business interests,
- and provide financial compensation to the employee.
When properly observed, this clause allows the business to protect its know-how, customer base, and trade secrets.
The risks of non-compliance: serious consequences
When a non-compete clause is breached, the former employee faces several potential sanctions:
- repayment of the financial compensation received under the clause,
- payment of damages to the employer,
- and, as in the Chambéry case, reimbursement of investigation costs incurred to prove the breach (here, €3,750).
This judgment is a reminder that a non-compete clause is not a mere formality: it is a binding commitment whose violation can have significant financial and legal consequences.
A ruling that recognises the value of private investigation reports
Contrary to common objections, the Court did not dismiss the investigator’s report. It stressed that an admissible investigation report can constitute strong evidence before employment tribunals, provided it complies with legal and ethical standards.
In other words, private investigator reports are not automatically rejected: they help ensure a fair balance in proceedings.
Strict scrutiny: privacy and proportionality
The Chambéry Court of Appeal carefully assessed the investigation:
- observations limited in duration,
- surveillance carried out only in public places,
- respect for the employee’s private life.
This ruling demonstrates that the use of a private investigator is entirely legitimate when the investigation remains proportionate and targeted. However, the judge retains discretion to exclude the evidence if these conditions are not met.
Protecting economic interests: a collective concern
By ordering the employee to reimburse the investigation costs as well as the undue payments received, the Court reaffirmed a crucial point: protecting a company’s finances, also means protecting its employees, and safeguarding the continuity of its operations.
Combating fraud and disloyal behaviour therefore contributes to a more balanced justice system, one that respects the efforts and rights of all.
A case law trend: balancing private life and business rights
Beyond this specific case, the decision reflects a broader trend: judges no longer systematically reject evidence gathered through private investigations. Instead, they adopt a case-by-case approach, seeking a fair balance between employee freedoms and the employer’s legitimate interests.
Private investigators, by providing concrete and verifiable evidence, play a crucial role in this pursuit of fairness.
Conclusion: non-compete clauses and admissible evidence, a winning combination
The judgment of 15 May 2025 is now a key reference in employment litigation. It confirms the role of private investigators in judicial proceedings, while also underlining the importance of complying with non-compete clauses.
At Agora Détectives, our mission remains unchanged: to provide our clients with admissible, precise, and lawful evidence to defend their interests, while contributing to a fair and balanced justice system.
