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

[RobinOakapple]

berlintaxi said:

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.

The chances of your having more life experience or knowing more about this stuff than me approach zero to several points of decimals.

By being negative I don't mean disagreeing with my post, I mean the negative attitude you and some others have displayed throughout this thread.

It's typical of the 'OP is always in the wrong, all sorts of bad st coming his way' stuff that is seen so often on the forum.

Am I right in thinking that your position is that he is going to face injunctions regardless of his next move?

[berlintaxi]

RobinOakapple said:

The chances of your having more life experience or knowing more about this stuff than me approach zero to several points of decimals.


Am I right in thinking that your position is that he is going to face injunctions regardless of his next move?

Please tell us what you base your first statement on seeing as you don't know me from Adam, and then point out where I said he would I said the company would take action regardless of what the OP does next. I merely pointed out that the cost to them to take action if the feel it necessary is probably negligible and therefore they may well act if they feel it is in their best interests and the OP has breached the covenant.

[RobinOakapple]

berlintaxi said:

Please tell us what you base your first statement on seeing as you don't know me from Adam, and then point out where I said he would I said the company would take action regardless of what the OP does next. I merely pointed out that the cost to them to take action if the feel it necessary is probably negligible and therefore they may well act if they feel it is in their best interests and the OP has breached the covenant.

If you want to compare our backgrounds in relation to this sort of thing, then it is only right that you should go first.
I asked you to clarify your position as to the likelihood (not the possibility, the likelihood) of the company applying for an injunction, my position is that it is very unlikely, what's your position?

[berlintaxi]

Avoided answering the question, as ever, it does seem to be your speciality based on your posts on this site in the short time you have been here. You were the one who started willy waving about how much more life experience you had but don't appear willing to back that up.

I've not give any indication of whether the OPs employers will do anything, merely pointed out that for large companies making life difficult for ex-workers is neither costly or difficult if so minded.

[RobinOakapple]

berlintaxi said:

Avoided answering the question, as ever, it does seem to be your speciality based on your posts on this site in the short time you have been here. You were the one who started willy waving about how much more life experience you had but don't appear willing to back that up.

Actually no, it was you who started it

berlintaxi said:

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.

[PorkInsider]

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.

Wow. OP, you'd be crazy not to follow the advice above. What could possibly go wrong!

I personally know someone who was very much pursued by his former employer, in not-hugely-dissimilar circumstances to the OP's, when he and a mate set up in business together. Life was made very difficult for them. In my opinion the ex-employer was being spiteful more than they were protecting their interests, but it still happened.

I don't know what line of business the OP is in but in the case I know of the ex-employer was a manufacturer, supplier and maintainer of equipment for the hospitality industry, without going into too much detail.

[Hungrymc]

A question: is there a risk that the employer believe even in being an independent service (and installation / commissioning)! technician, that this effectively may make it easier for current clients to purchase equiemt from cheaper sources who don't have the service backup of the current employer? That could be seen as assisting direct competition and may make the restrictive covenants more challenging? I'm not intending to be negative, just trying to anticipate angles that could make this more difficult (better to plan for and avoid these possibilities than be caught out by them). I may be way off the mark, just a question.....

Edited to add : I guess there is the possibility of ongoing service contracts outside of the warranty period also being a factor here where there could be direct competition?

Edited by Hungrymc on Thursday 9th April 12:12

[berlintaxi]

PorkInsider said:

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.

Wow. OP, you'd be crazy not to follow the advice above. What could possibly go wrong!

I personally know someone who was very much pursued by his former employer, in not-hugely-dissimilar circumstances to the OP's, when he and a mate set up in business together. Life was made very difficult for them. In my opinion the ex-employer was being spiteful more than they were protecting their interests, but it still happened.

I don't know what line of business the OP is in but in the case I know of the ex-employer was a manufacturer, supplier and maintainer of equipment for the hospitality industry, without going into too much detail.

Really,I am shocked,not! Funny how he appears to be the only one hearing a different drum.

[RobinOakapple]

PorkInsider said:

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.

Wow. OP, you'd be crazy not to follow the advice above. What could possibly go wrong!

I personally know someone who was very much pursued by his former employer, in not-hugely-dissimilar circumstances to the OP's, when he and a mate set up in business together. Life was made very difficult for them. In my opinion the ex-employer was being spiteful more than they were protecting their interests, but it still happened.

I don't know what line of business the OP is in but in the case I know of the ex-employer was a manufacturer, supplier and maintainer of equipment for the hospitality industry, without going into too much detail.

First of all, I am not offering advice, I am commenting on the likelihood of the employer seeking an injunction against the OP.

If the court thought the employer was acting out of spite, the chances of getting the injunction would drop to zero. There are also problems for the employer because the OP was already in the business before commencing the employment and in any case is covering a wider range of equipment that does the employer. So even if the injunction was applied for, and issued, it would have no effect against his servicing the other equipment.

And beyond all that, the OP is already set on this course of action, I daresay he has already invested in it, and there is no pint in his not continuing. It's not as if he is contemplating doing something, that ship has sailed.

[Jonsv8]

Dare I even ask if there's an update to this?

[Monkeylegend]

Jonsv8 said:

Dare I even ask if there's an update to this?

Looks like you dare

An update could be....er interesting.

[Monkeylegend]

He's mowing the lawn.

[Charlie1986]

l will take an educated guess at the op's next post

I have been advised not to comment on this thread by my super trooper of a lawyer encase I dig a deeper hole as per my previous posts what people have pointed out.

Next thread: Ive paid a wedding deposit can I get it back to pay Court fee's?

[With these feet]

I wonder if this thread will go exactly the same way as the one with the guy with the 125 who wanted to return it and get his money back.
He argued tooth and nail that consumer law covered him and a few said he was right, others disagreed. He got very upset and then we never really heard that much, other than he didnt get the result he believed he deserved.

[Jasandjules]

Charlie1986 said:

I have been advised not to comment on this thread by my super trooper of a lawyer

Ah, the remarkable chap who worked weekends (Bank Holiday weekends at that).

[singlecoil]

Charlie1986 said:

l will take an educated guess at the op's next post

I have been advised not to comment on this thread by my super trooper of a lawyer encase I dig a deeper hole as per my previous posts what people have pointed out.

Next thread: Ive paid a wedding deposit can I get it back to pay Court fee's?

I think I had better quote this post because there is an element of irony in it.

[anonymous-user]

He's not posted anything on PH since last Wednesday!

[RobinOakapple]

singlecoil said:

Charlie1986 said:

l will take an educated guess at the op's next post

I have been advised not to comment on this thread by my super trooper of a lawyer encase I dig a deeper hole as per my previous posts what people have pointed out.

Next thread: Ive paid a wedding deposit can I get it back to pay Court fee's?

I think I had better quote this post because there is an element of irony in it.

You are thinking no doubt of the 'educated' followed by the spelling mistake and superfluous apostrophe?

[don'tbesilly]

RobinOakapple said:

singlecoil said:

Charlie1986 said:

l will take an educated guess at the op's next post

I have been advised not to comment on this thread by my super trooper of a lawyer encase I dig a deeper hole as per my previous posts what people have pointed out.

Next thread: Ive paid a wedding deposit can I get it back to pay Court fee's?

I think I had better quote this post because there is an element of irony in it.

You are thinking no doubt of the 'educated' followed by the spelling mistake and superfluous apostrophe?

Is that's all you noticed, or did you deliberately fail to mention the other glaring error?

[AlexRS2782]

don'tbesilly said:

RobinOakapple said:

singlecoil said:

Charlie1986 said:

l will take an educated guess at the op's next post

I have been advised not to comment on this thread by my super trooper of a lawyer encase I dig a deeper hole as per my previous posts what people have pointed out.

Next thread: Ive paid a wedding deposit can I get it back to pay Court fee's?

I think I had better quote this post because there is an element of irony in it.

You are thinking no doubt of the 'educated' followed by the spelling mistake and superfluous apostrophe?

Is that's all you noticed, or did you deliberately fail to mention the other glaring error?

I wonder whether the OP will be able to update us. If this thread goes as per Charlie's post, the OP will end up being sealed up in a box of some form. Possibly even in the hole that's being dug?