Help: employment law and non-compete
Discussion
C.A.R. said:
As above, I don't have the finances to commit to my own legal advice. I've made enquiries and the going rate is about £250. I want a positive outcome from the current situation between both employers respective solicitors. If I commit to such expenditure now, what would the bonus be for me? Would I ever get that money back? Would I be able to claim for loss of earnings?
If the answer to either of those questions is no or probably not, then I can't justify the expense.
I'm awaiting news tomorrow, both MDs are looking to have a conversation over the phone to try and resolve, whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess.
That will be £250 per hour (maybe plus VAT) and the hours add up very quickly. I can't think of any scenario where you would get any money back, the best you could hope for would be a relaxation of your contract terms. If the answer to either of those questions is no or probably not, then I can't justify the expense.
I'm awaiting news tomorrow, both MDs are looking to have a conversation over the phone to try and resolve, whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess.
If the MDs can come to an arrangement then you might be ok, if not, I'm afraid that you will have to further your career in different market sector.
C.A.R. said:
As above, I don't have the finances to commit to my own legal advice. I've made enquiries and the going rate is about £250. I want a positive outcome from the current situation between both employers respective solicitors. If I commit to such expenditure now, what would the bonus be for me? Would I ever get that money back? Would I be able to claim for loss of earnings?
If the answer to either of those questions is no or probably not, then I can't justify the expense.
I'm awaiting news tomorrow, both MDs are looking to have a conversation over the phone to try and resolve, whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess.
I'm not sure if this has been asked but, do you have legal cover as part of your buildings insurance?If the answer to either of those questions is no or probably not, then I can't justify the expense.
I'm awaiting news tomorrow, both MDs are looking to have a conversation over the phone to try and resolve, whether or not anything will come of it is anyone's guess.
If so, you may have up to £50k worth of cover for employment related matters.
C.A.R. said:
As above, I don't have the finances to commit to my own legal advice. I've made enquiries and the going rate is about £250. I want a positive outcome from the current situation between both employers respective solicitors. If I commit to such expenditure now, what would the bonus be for me?
.,
The fact that you'd be able to accept one of the job offers would be what's in it for you..,
Or twelve months doing something else possibly earning less money.
Roo said:
The fact that you'd be able to accept one of the job offers would be what's in it for you.
Or twelve months doing something else possibly earning less money.
You're assuming that professional, paid for advice would be 'Go for it, what could possibly go wrong', whereas professional, not paid for advice on here would suggest the opposite to be the case. He's signed a valid contract that prevents him from taking up the various job offers open to him, paying for his own solicitor doesn't change the terms of the contract.Or twelve months doing something else possibly earning less money.
sunil4 said:
Put the fees on a 0% credit card. Its nothing in terms of your future employment and state of mind.
What would you expect fees to be in total? If the other side is serious I'd suggest a budget of £3k per month for the first few months, that would pay for 10 hours or so of fees which would be enough for the initial exchange of letters and drawing up of particulars. If it starts to get anywhere near court then you'll have to add the cost of a Barrister to the budget, which is an 'as well as' cost not instead of the solicitor. Previous experience would suggest that fees are calculated in 6 minute increments, so £30 minimum (at £250/hr + VAT) every time your solicitor picks up the phone, it pays to keep the pleasantries to a minimum...
The OP is not necessarily doomed. He may have two arguments:-
(1) The Court may think that the covenant is too wide in any event.
(2) The Court may think that the OP does not have sufficient confidential information to justify an injunction.
The latter argument in particular depends on the evidence that the ex employer puts forward if the case goes to court.
(1) The Court may think that the covenant is too wide in any event.
(2) The Court may think that the OP does not have sufficient confidential information to justify an injunction.
The latter argument in particular depends on the evidence that the ex employer puts forward if the case goes to court.
Breadvan72 said:
The OP is not necessarily doomed. He may have two arguments:-
(1) The Court may think that the covenant is too wide in any event.
(2) The Court may think that the OP does not have sufficient confidential information to justify an injunction.
The latter argument in particular depends on the evidence that the ex employer puts forward if the case goes to court.
If I recall he was also on probation and so presumably could fail that and if the covenants were in force he'd be screwed as he could not work elsewhere. Maybe an angle on that front as the terms are unfair (even if post probation they were fair)?(1) The Court may think that the covenant is too wide in any event.
(2) The Court may think that the OP does not have sufficient confidential information to justify an injunction.
The latter argument in particular depends on the evidence that the ex employer puts forward if the case goes to court.
Nope, the restrictions have to be fair on the first day of the contract. The probation point might go to the Court's discretion to refuse an injunction, but would not in itself invalidate the covenants. Even a recently joined employee, however, might have obtained access to enough secret info to justify an injunction. That's an issue of fact, and we don't have enough info on that. In any event, factual disputes would not be resolved until trial, if there is a trial.
No real developments of late.
I've spoken again to the new employer who has filled me in on what their solicitors has taken from the situation. There are several factors which weaken their case;
- The provision of a 'best of luck in the future' letter sent in response to my request to discuss the non-compete covenant and confirming my resignation. This will be viewed as an official response and indicates that there was later a change of heart, as it suggests no further action would be taken.
- Despite being asked to present one, the old employer hasn't been able to identify a list of customers it wants me to avoid contact with for the 12 months, leaving the scope too wide to be considered reasonable / a legitimate business interest worthy of protection.
-The lack of response and the wording of the latest correspondence suggests that there is room for negotiation, it's not anywhere near as threatening as previous letters. The solicitor acting on my behalf thinks this shows a lack of confidence in their own cause, and that they do not wish to take it to court.
The planned discussion between both parties has not yet taken place, but a voicemail was left today. Whether the call will be returned or if the correspondence gets referred to the solicitors will identify how serious they are about imposing the restriction in its current form. If they do refer contact via their solicitors, I'll be making a call about a job I was offered earlier this week. Same industry, but not a competitor and could not be considered as such. The problem will be the startup time, as it's a new role which I may not be able to start immediately.
Finally, I've drafted up a letter to my previous MD, requesting reimbursement of my travel costs on my last day. As someone else recently pointed out to me, I paid company car tax for the calendar month on the company vehicle, but returned it at their request 5 days before the end of the month. That, plus of course the principle of keeping to his word, as the costs of this travel were promised to me beforehand, else I would've made other travel arrangements. In the letter, I wish him and his family well and excuse him for the situation, as I now understand it was not his decision to 'go legal'. I'd prefer to look back on my employment with fondness, rather than have it left with a sour taste.
Here's hoping for a swift resolution or at the very least, a response.
I've spoken again to the new employer who has filled me in on what their solicitors has taken from the situation. There are several factors which weaken their case;
- The provision of a 'best of luck in the future' letter sent in response to my request to discuss the non-compete covenant and confirming my resignation. This will be viewed as an official response and indicates that there was later a change of heart, as it suggests no further action would be taken.
- Despite being asked to present one, the old employer hasn't been able to identify a list of customers it wants me to avoid contact with for the 12 months, leaving the scope too wide to be considered reasonable / a legitimate business interest worthy of protection.
-The lack of response and the wording of the latest correspondence suggests that there is room for negotiation, it's not anywhere near as threatening as previous letters. The solicitor acting on my behalf thinks this shows a lack of confidence in their own cause, and that they do not wish to take it to court.
The planned discussion between both parties has not yet taken place, but a voicemail was left today. Whether the call will be returned or if the correspondence gets referred to the solicitors will identify how serious they are about imposing the restriction in its current form. If they do refer contact via their solicitors, I'll be making a call about a job I was offered earlier this week. Same industry, but not a competitor and could not be considered as such. The problem will be the startup time, as it's a new role which I may not be able to start immediately.
Finally, I've drafted up a letter to my previous MD, requesting reimbursement of my travel costs on my last day. As someone else recently pointed out to me, I paid company car tax for the calendar month on the company vehicle, but returned it at their request 5 days before the end of the month. That, plus of course the principle of keeping to his word, as the costs of this travel were promised to me beforehand, else I would've made other travel arrangements. In the letter, I wish him and his family well and excuse him for the situation, as I now understand it was not his decision to 'go legal'. I'd prefer to look back on my employment with fondness, rather than have it left with a sour taste.
Here's hoping for a swift resolution or at the very least, a response.
C.A.R. said:
Finally, I've drafted up a letter to my previous MD, requesting reimbursement of my travel costs on my last day.
He buildeth bridges with one hand, he burneth in the other.The guy holds your future job in his hands. Really!? He's probably not best pleased having to spend money on solicitors to keep you to your contract. I bet he's lost out more.
C.A.R. said:
In the letter, I wish him and his family well and excuse him for the situation, as I now understand it was not his decision to 'go legal'.
How magnanimous of you to excuse his wish to keep you to your contract, and having to spend money on legal costs when you told him you were working for a competitor in direct contravention of your agreement not to.If you are being represented, my advice is not to write to the MD, and take their advice on what or if to write. What you have suggested writing may very well be kicking the hornet's nest, whilst you are simultaneously pleading not to be stung.
Edited by JustinP1 on Tuesday 10th November 23:29
Breadvan72 said:
Another phacktoid: this all kicked off with Maxim Nordenfelt, one of the biggest arms dealers of the late nineteenth century, a man who made a mint selling modern weaponry to the Colonial powers and Imperial rivals of late C19 Europe. By the time that he came to argue his case before the House of Lords, he was a pauper. It's often not a rewarding business, litigating about contracts, unless you happen to be a lawyer, that is.
The person was a Swede, Thorsten Nordenfelt. The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Limited came into existence in July 1888 as a result of the amalgamation of the Maxim Gun Company and the Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company.Nordenfelt's rapid firing gun predates Maxim's by over a decade (1873 v 1884) but (Sir) Hiram Maxim is far better known to posterity than Thorsten Nordenfelt.
Those who are interested can find the case details here - http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/1894AC535.html
C.A.R. said:
No real developments of late.
I've spoken again to the new employer who has filled me in on what their solicitors has taken from the situation. There are several factors which weaken their case;
- The provision of a 'best of luck in the future' letter sent in response to my request to discuss the non-compete covenant and confirming my resignation. This will be viewed as an official response and indicates that there was later a change of heart, as it suggests no further action would be taken.
....
I wonder if the solicitors have been misquoted, but if this is really what they said, then they seem rather clueless! That is just about the worst argument that I have ever seen in almost thirty years of doing covenant cases. If that's their first (and best?) point, then crikey! I've spoken again to the new employer who has filled me in on what their solicitors has taken from the situation. There are several factors which weaken their case;
- The provision of a 'best of luck in the future' letter sent in response to my request to discuss the non-compete covenant and confirming my resignation. This will be viewed as an official response and indicates that there was later a change of heart, as it suggests no further action would be taken.
....
Anyway, no more advice from me on this thread. I am switching to popcorn mode.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 11th November 07:45
Red Devil said:
Breadvan72 said:
Another phacktoid: this all kicked off with Maxim Nordenfelt, one of the biggest arms dealers of the late nineteenth century, a man who made a mint selling modern weaponry to the Colonial powers and Imperial rivals of late C19 Europe. By the time that he came to argue his case before the House of Lords, he was a pauper. It's often not a rewarding business, litigating about contracts, unless you happen to be a lawyer, that is.
The person was a Swede, Thorsten Nordenfelt. The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Limited came into existence in July 1888 as a result of the amalgamation of the Maxim Gun Company and the Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company.Nordenfelt's rapid firing gun predates Maxim's by over a decade (1873 v 1884) but (Sir) Hiram Maxim is far better known to posterity than Thorsten Nordenfelt.
Those who are interested can find the case details here - http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs6/1894AC535.html
"Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not."
(Hilaire Belloc)
You would have to be a gibbering idiot to send that letter. If I were the MD, I would respond by calling the solicitors and saying 'Negotiate after we get the injunction. I'm tired of this moaning twit'.
I think the OP must have misunderstood what the sols were saying re the 'best of luck' letter. As he explains the point, it's terrible.
I think the OP must have misunderstood what the sols were saying re the 'best of luck' letter. As he explains the point, it's terrible.
ORD said:
I think the OP must have misunderstood what the sols were saying re the 'best of luck' letter. As he explains the point, it's terrible.
te like that.The fact that the New Employer won't employ the the OP even though there isn't an injunction yet says a lot.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff