Told my employer I was leaving, didn't end well!

[Jasandjules]

RobinOakapple said:

I think the idea that this firm could stop him letting their customers know that he is now on business for himself by getting rid of him early is a bit pathetic, as if he would be likely to forget the places he's been working at.

In any case, as he will now be covering a wider range than his employer did, just as he did before he started working for them, he has a perfectly legitimate reason for calling on customers and offering his services.

This will depend on the covenant in his contract. Employers can and do enforce them.

[don'tbesilly]

RobinOakapple said:

In any case, as he will now be covering a wider range than his employer did, just as he did before he started working for them, he has a perfectly legitimate reason for calling on customers and offering his services.

Without knowing what is in the covenants, or how the covenants are written, that's a difficult one to call.

I just hope the OP uses different 'experts' (I use the term lightly!) then he used previously when taking advice on responding to the now ex employers email which terminated his employment (rightly or wrongly).

[RobinOakapple]

Jasandjules said:

RobinOakapple said:

I think the idea that this firm could stop him letting their customers know that he is now on business for himself by getting rid of him early is a bit pathetic, as if he would be likely to forget the places he's been working at.

In any case, as he will now be covering a wider range than his employer did, just as he did before he started working for them, he has a perfectly legitimate reason for calling on customers and offering his services.

This will depend on the covenant in his contract. Employers can and do enforce them.

They can't stop him from pursuing work that he didn't do for his employers.

[berlintaxi]

RobinOakapple said:

Jasandjules said:

RobinOakapple said:

I think the idea that this firm could stop him letting their customers know that he is now on business for himself by getting rid of him early is a bit pathetic, as if he would be likely to forget the places he's been working at.

In any case, as he will now be covering a wider range than his employer did, just as he did before he started working for them, he has a perfectly legitimate reason for calling on customers and offering his services.

This will depend on the covenant in his contract. Employers can and do enforce them.

They can't stop him from pursuing work that he didn't do for his employers.

They can stop him visiting former customers regardless of what he plans to do there, depending on how the covenant is worded.

[Jasandjules]

RobinOakapple said:

They can't stop him from pursuing work that he didn't do for his employers.

Are you 100% certain of that?

And if so, what basis do you say that? Here is what one employment law book says

Restrictive covenants are now common clauses in contracts of employment, particularly for more senior employees who are more likely to damage the business interests of an employer if they join a competitor. Common forms of covenants include non-competition, non solicitation of clients and employees, and non-interference with trade connections and suppliers. There are strict rules on the enforceability of restrictive covenants are they are prima facie restraints of trade. In order for the covenant to be enforceable, it must be very carefully drafted and no wider than to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer. They must be reasonable in duration, geographical scope, width of applicability and relevant to the business interests of the employer.

[rossc]

I'm not qualified to offer any form of legal advice but what I can advise you is that if all you're fighting over is what seems to be £4k then cut your losses and move on asap with your Wedding and your new business. Having personally been the wrong side of this game of poker with a previous employer with legal bills running at £500 / hr your pockets had better be deeper than your principles.

I wish you all the best for your forthcoming Wedding and business venture

Ross

[RobinOakapple]

Jasandjules said:

RobinOakapple said:

They can't stop him from pursuing work that he didn't do for his employers.

Are you 100% certain of that?

And if so, what basis do you say that? Here is what one employment law book says

Restrictive covenants are now common clauses in contracts of employment, particularly for more senior employees who are more likely to damage the business interests of an employer if they join a competitor. Common forms of covenants include non-competition, non solicitation of clients and employees, and non-interference with trade connections and suppliers. There are strict rules on the enforceability of restrictive covenants are they are prima facie restraints of trade. In order for the covenant to be enforceable, it must be very carefully drafted and no wider than to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer. They must be reasonable in duration, geographical scope, width of applicability and relevant to the business interests of the employer.

Are we discussing what could happen, in various extreme circumstances, or what likely would happen?

The idea of this particular employer trying to enforce a convenant, on dodgy ground as your link shows (specific to the employer's business, and reasonableness) is shall we say somewhat unlikely. We already know that the OP will be covering equipment that the employer does not, so they would have no grounds to enforce a covenant there. We also know he was working on the employer's type of equipment before working for the employer, so there would be a reasonableness issue there.

So, to sum up, chance of covenant enforcement in this case, virtually zero.

[berlintaxi]

RobinOakapple said:

Jasandjules said:

RobinOakapple said:

They can't stop him from pursuing work that he didn't do for his employers.

Are you 100% certain of that?

And if so, what basis do you say that? Here is what one employment law book says

Restrictive covenants are now common clauses in contracts of employment, particularly for more senior employees who are more likely to damage the business interests of an employer if they join a competitor. Common forms of covenants include non-competition, non solicitation of clients and employees, and non-interference with trade connections and suppliers. There are strict rules on the enforceability of restrictive covenants are they are prima facie restraints of trade. In order for the covenant to be enforceable, it must be very carefully drafted and no wider than to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer. They must be reasonable in duration, geographical scope, width of applicability and relevant to the business interests of the employer.

Are we discussing what could happen, in various extreme circumstances, or what likely would happen?

The idea of this particular employer trying to enforce a convenant, on dodgy ground as your link shows (specific to the employer's business, and reasonableness) is shall we say somewhat unlikely. We already know that the OP will be covering equipment that the employer does not, so they would have no grounds to enforce a covenant there. We also know he was working on the employer's type of equipment before working for the employer, so there would be a reasonableness issue there.

So, to sum up, chance of covenant enforcement in this case, virtually zero.

I sincerely hope you ain't offering that as advice to anybody.

[Jasandjules]

RobinOakapple said:

So, to sum up, chance of covenant enforcement in this case, virtually zero.

Actually, two things spring rapidly to mind.

The first, is that the OP's clients are asking for his details.
The second, which flows from the first, is that this would sound like exactly the kind of thing a covenant would enforce.

What you or I might consider "reasonable" might not be what a Court does.

[RobinOakapple]

Jasandjules said:

RobinOakapple said:

So, to sum up, chance of covenant enforcement in this case, virtually zero.

Actually, two things spring rapidly to mind.

The first, is that the OP's clients are asking for his details.
The second, which flows from the first, is that this would sound like exactly the kind of thing a covenant would enforce.

What you or I might consider "reasonable" might not be what a Court does.

Perhaps you would like to outline the steps the employer would need to take to enforce a covenant which they felt covered this situation? Covenants, as you know, are not self-enforcing. The employer will need to convince a court that it should grant an injuction, easier, and cheaper, to say than to do.

[JustinP1]

RobinOakapple said:

Perhaps you would like to outline the steps the employer would need to take to enforce a covenant which they felt covered this situation? Covenants, as you know, are not self-enforcing. The employer will need to convince a court that it should grant an injuction, easier, and cheaper, to say than to do.

That becomes a lot easier when there's evidence a current client jumps ship to the ex-employee, and you are a large organisation with a big budget to defend your commercial interests.

I'd suggest their ability to do that vastly outweighs the OP's ability to overturn any injunction or defend legal action.

Hence, my prior recommendation that he takes specific legal advice over this area, not take generic advice from the internet.

[RobinOakapple]

JustinP1 said:

RobinOakapple said:

Perhaps you would like to outline the steps the employer would need to take to enforce a covenant which they felt covered this situation? Covenants, as you know, are not self-enforcing. The employer will need to convince a court that it should grant an injuction, easier, and cheaper, to say than to do.

That becomes a lot easier when there's evidence a current client jumps ship to the ex-employee, and you are a large organisation with a big budget to defend your commercial interests.

I'd suggest their ability to do that vastly outweighs the OP's ability to overturn any injunction or defend legal action.

Hence, my prior recommendation that he takes specific legal advice over this area, not take generic advice from the internet.

No-one here is offering advice, I would trust, and as we know that the op is consulting a solicitor, your advice not to take advice from the internet is unnecessary.

There seems to be some confusion here between 'can' and 'will'. We all know the employer 'can' apply to the court or an injuction, but is it likely that he 'will'? Bearing in mind there is a good chance he won't get it, and whether he does or not, it is going to cost him quite a bit of time and money.

So my guess, which is as good as anybody else's here, is that they won't (despite the fact that they can).

[berlintaxi]

RobinOakapple said:

There seems to be some confusion here between 'can' and 'will'. We all know the employer 'can' apply to the court or an injuction, but is it likely that he 'will'? Bearing in mind there is a good chance he won't get it, and whether he does or not, it is going to cost him quite a bit of time and money.

So my guess, which is as good as anybody else's here, is that they won't (despite the fact that they can).

Large corporation, probably a firm of solicitors on retainer, probably cost them very little to make life difficult for the OP.

[RobinOakapple]

berlintaxi said:

Large corporation, probably a firm of solicitors on retainer, probably cost them very little to make life difficult for the OP.

I sincerely hope you ain't offering that as advice to anybody.

[berlintaxi]

RobinOakapple said:

berlintaxi said:

Large corporation, probably a firm of solicitors on retainer, probably cost them very little to make life difficult for the OP.

I sincerely hope you ain't offering that as advice to anybody.

certainly more accurate than yours.

[RobinOakapple]

berlintaxi said:

RobinOakapple said:

berlintaxi said:

Large corporation, probably a firm of solicitors on retainer, probably cost them very little to make life difficult for the OP.

I sincerely hope you ain't offering that as advice to anybody.

certainly more accurate than yours.

No it isn't. Think about it, and stop being so negative.

[berlintaxi]

Why is it negative if someone disagrees with your post? Maybe some of us have more life experience than you and have seen or experienced these sorts of situations before.

[berlintaxi]

Why is it negative if someone disagrees with your post? Maybe some of us have more life experience than you and have seen or experienced these sorts of situations before.

[Charlie1986]

whats stopping the OP old company letting this go to a tribunal and letting it hurt the OP where it will the most? and each time a current customer leaves to join the OP surely this is evidence against the op? Or just actively out price him so he cant do it.

As said before if its a big company they will try there hardest to protect there interests and if this pushes the OP to a financial mess with court costs etc they wont care, Seems they think they have a strong case and taking my 2p's worth from what the OP has stated its a close call to who is right and who is wrong.

[Jasandjules]

RobinOakapple said:

So my guess, which is as good as anybody else's here, is that they won't (despite the fact that they can).

With respect, it is not.

However, my experience is that some companies will seek injunctive relief to ensure that future employees don't undertake similar acts. And IF the OP is looking at pinching clients or the employer reasonably suspects he is (given these clients appear to be asking for his details, that is a reasonable ground) then they will also take action to protect their client base.

You seem to think it is very difficult for an employer to obtain such relief. In some cases perhaps, in others it is very straightforward.