Help: employment law and non-compete
Discussion
ORD said:
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.
Yep.
OP, I'd look at it this way; you believe in your case, you think there's no reason to lose, and you need to earn. So for heaven's sake, get a proper solicitor who specialises in this sort of thing, accept that it's going to cost money you haven't got, and get it resolved. By rights, the whole thing should have been over by now (it's never going to get to court) and you could have been earning. Or you lose, in which case you have resolution and you find a job elsewhere.
As it is, you don't know where you stand. And you're earning nothing.
So borrow the money or (as someone mentioned above, utilise your household insurance legal cover - most policies have this) ....... somehow find the money to instruct a solicitor of your own, and DON'T GET INVOLVED. You hire a solicitor to do the communication, so please stop trying to send letters, and drop the whole "I'm owed £49.73 for expenses". Yes, you very well may be, but right now you're being penny wise and pound foolish.
Good luck.
C.A.R. said:
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'.
You are insane. HTH.Why are you not keeping to your word, you know, the contract you signed?
Vaud said:
C.A.R. said:
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'.
You are insane. HTH.Why are you not keeping to your word, you know, the contract you signed?
I would be surprised if more than 10 % of people have anything as sophisticated as principles that operate in the same way for themselves as for others. The vast majority of people are extremely indignant when they are on the wrong end of a broken promise but are equally angered by being held to their own (inconvenient) promises.
ORD said:
The answer, and I say this without scorn, is that the OP does not want to comply with his obligation because it is costly and inconvenient to him. It is neither costly nor inconvenient to him (quite the opposite) for his ex-employer to pay him travel money.
I would be surprised if more than 10 % of people have anything as sophisticated as principles that operate in the same way for themselves as for others. The vast majority of people are extremely indignant when they are on the wrong end of a broken promise but are equally angered by being held to their own (inconvenient) promises.
I think my question was slightly rhetorical.I would be surprised if more than 10 % of people have anything as sophisticated as principles that operate in the same way for themselves as for others. The vast majority of people are extremely indignant when they are on the wrong end of a broken promise but are equally angered by being held to their own (inconvenient) promises.
It's great that people ask for advice. I try to give measured, practical advice, always caveated by "IANAL". I am always grateful for BV72 and others who provide guidance (though of course not formal advice) as the experts in a domain - but always stunned that posters don't take it on board!
The advice, too, is inconvenient in that it would require the OP to (1) engage his brain and start thinking about the outcome that he wants and (2) take steps towards that goal. It is much easier to mope about, moan and lash out at the ex-employer. Without the benefit of a fairly stern solicitor taking them by the arm, most people behave like right tits when litigation is threatened.
This place is a buffet, and people can load their plates, but don't have to eat anything. The buffet tends to be over loaded anyway, with a mixture of good stuff and bad. They can go to the buffet as many times as they like, or not at all.
I don't mind people not taking advice, as that's their prerogative. I mind a bit more when people here give advice that is based on a misunderstanding of the law. People often say "I am not giving advice, just saying what I think" (often that is merely what they have read on a dodgy website), but the problem with that is that duff opinions can spread, and some people may act on them.
Restrictive covenants are a good example of how the problem of duff advice manifests itself. There used to be an oft expressed view in this sub forum and in the employment sub forum that restrictive covenants are never or hardly ever enforceable. That view has shifted, thanks to contributions from a few of us who have some familiarity with what actually happens when covenants are tested in court. The "not enforceable" view is still widespread on the internet, however. One reason why I bang on about stuff is that I think that the more non lawyers know about the law, the better.
Parking and speeding are two other areas where myth, pseudo law and woo abound. They have spawned cottage industries of the blind leading the blind.
I don't mind people not taking advice, as that's their prerogative. I mind a bit more when people here give advice that is based on a misunderstanding of the law. People often say "I am not giving advice, just saying what I think" (often that is merely what they have read on a dodgy website), but the problem with that is that duff opinions can spread, and some people may act on them.
Restrictive covenants are a good example of how the problem of duff advice manifests itself. There used to be an oft expressed view in this sub forum and in the employment sub forum that restrictive covenants are never or hardly ever enforceable. That view has shifted, thanks to contributions from a few of us who have some familiarity with what actually happens when covenants are tested in court. The "not enforceable" view is still widespread on the internet, however. One reason why I bang on about stuff is that I think that the more non lawyers know about the law, the better.
Parking and speeding are two other areas where myth, pseudo law and woo abound. They have spawned cottage industries of the blind leading the blind.
The Spruce goose said:
free advice as well, but i don't think the op needs lawyers to advise him, it is patently obvious to all this scenario won't turn out as he envisages.
Actually, I'd suggest that this situation could have had a very different outcome. The OP was advised to take specialist legal advice a month ago, when he had handed in his notice.
The problem with this situation is that the old employer has taken the first move, and an understandably very defensive one. This situation could have been very different:
If the OP took professional advice, he would have set out his stall first. The old employer could have received a solicitor's letter saying a longer version of:
"I've looked over the contract, you are dodgy on X, Y and Z, and you might not win on those if it gets to court. Also, this is our position on how little stuff my client knows. To bring swift conclusion I suggest a settlement where my client will not contact or deal with the following clients for the next 12 months, so you are protected. If you'd like to discuss adding clients to this list that C.A.R. has worked with, then we can consider those."
I'm a hard-nosed businessman, but I would not have reacted negatively to that because:
1) It is demonstrated that C.A.R. is 'serious' - he has his own solicitor and got timely legal advice.
2) This may be paid for by his home insurance - the solicitor may gladly shoot the s
t with me for months, but this is going to cost me real money to fight, and still might not win - what's my endgame?3) But, do I really need to fight? What they've offered me is reasonable enough protection. Actually, no, I don't.
I'd suggest a very good chance that the OP would have been working in his new job last week. Hence the value of getting timely, professional advice. The difficulty now is the horse has already bolted, and the factors in 1) 2) and 3) did not occur and everyone is now in 'litigation mode' and the old employer holds more cards than the OP.
As BV's suggested this situation is salvageable - and I totally agree that the OP needs his own professional being more proactive with settlement.
RYH64E said:
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.
Whereas sitting on his arse and doing nothing will get the OP nowhere.
Roo said:
Admittedly my post was working along the lines of Justins last post where the OPs own solicitor may have been able to get a resolution.
Whereas sitting on his arse and doing nothing will get the OP nowhere.
Ex and prospective employers may work it out, in which case everything is a ok. If they dont he'll likely have the same issues elsewhere.Whereas sitting on his arse and doing nothing will get the OP nowhere.
If it were me I'd probably not bother with the outlay of my own solicitor. As the costs can put you in a hole really quickly. Is it worth the risk.
The only constant in all scenarios is that the clause may be upheld. So i'd be expending all my efforts now to be securing an alternative line of work for 12 months.
Good news.
It's been very quiet over the last week waiting for communication from my ex employer but we've finally had a breakthrough. Realising their case was weak and unlikely to be upheld if it ever got to court, they have revised the restrictions they wish to impose which effectively releases me from my contract leaving me free to work for the new employer. I was expecting a list of restricted customers but nothing has been defined as yet, just the vague description of 'restrictive business'. I'm more than happy for it to remain as vague as that!
It dragged out for 3 weeks in the end, which has been costly but won't see us go without, all it has done is scale back our plans for Christmas presents for our children and meant a delay to our July 2017 wedding. Could have gone worse.
I'll start with my new employer next week. Fortunately, the 'doom and gloom' touted on this thread was just speculation and a concise, coordinated response to the situation got the result in the end, without any legal costs my end. My only regret is that I hadn't got my previous director to put into writing their intentions to not enforce the restrictive covenant, instead putting my trust in them and taking their word for it.
Thanks all for your input.
It's been very quiet over the last week waiting for communication from my ex employer but we've finally had a breakthrough. Realising their case was weak and unlikely to be upheld if it ever got to court, they have revised the restrictions they wish to impose which effectively releases me from my contract leaving me free to work for the new employer. I was expecting a list of restricted customers but nothing has been defined as yet, just the vague description of 'restrictive business'. I'm more than happy for it to remain as vague as that!
It dragged out for 3 weeks in the end, which has been costly but won't see us go without, all it has done is scale back our plans for Christmas presents for our children and meant a delay to our July 2017 wedding. Could have gone worse.
I'll start with my new employer next week. Fortunately, the 'doom and gloom' touted on this thread was just speculation and a concise, coordinated response to the situation got the result in the end, without any legal costs my end. My only regret is that I hadn't got my previous director to put into writing their intentions to not enforce the restrictive covenant, instead putting my trust in them and taking their word for it.
Thanks all for your input.
C.A.R. said:
the 'doom and gloom' touted on this thread was just speculation
It really, really wasn't, at least from those that were qualified to advise (I do not include myself). It was pragmatic advice based on them having seen many, many cases.I would be interested to see the aforementioned professionals view on the "restrictive business" and undefined restrictions as my gut feel is this may not be over.
C.A.R. said:
I'll start with my new employer next week. Fortunately, the 'doom and gloom' touted on this thread was just speculation and a concise, coordinated response to the situation got the result in the end, without any legal costs my end.
It's good news, but I really wouldn't get carried away. The above comes across as flippant for someone that was in such a precarious position.Edited by xxChrisxx on Thursday 19th November 14:56
Sorry, it wasn't supposed to come across in any way dismissive or ungrateful in terms of the advice received. Please understand that I've been rather overwhelmed with being able to set a start date for my new job, which has been a huge relief.
With regards to the terminology 'restricted business' this literally translates as something which they deem to be in direct competition with, either customer or project specific. This shouldn't be problematic for me, as the majority of my 'patch' is rather un-specified and with no clear preference of suppliers, leaving the door wide open if you excuse the pun.
I have received a letter from the solicitors basically asking whether the intended revisions to my undertaking would be acceptable, to which I have replied yes they would. I now await them to put something more formal together for me to sign and return.
Happy days.
With regards to the terminology 'restricted business' this literally translates as something which they deem to be in direct competition with, either customer or project specific. This shouldn't be problematic for me, as the majority of my 'patch' is rather un-specified and with no clear preference of suppliers, leaving the door wide open if you excuse the pun.
I have received a letter from the solicitors basically asking whether the intended revisions to my undertaking would be acceptable, to which I have replied yes they would. I now await them to put something more formal together for me to sign and return.
Happy days.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff