working for a competitor....
Discussion
swerni said:
Are you saying, it would be unreasonable stopping someone actually going to a competitor, but it may be reasonable to stop them competing for a period of time?
reading the links posted by BV It appears an employee can be prevented for actually being employed by a competitor swerni said:
Are you saying, it would be unreasonable stopping someone actually going to a competitor, but it may be reasonable to stop them competing for a period of time?
No, I am not saying that. I can help you with the law (but only if you make some effort and give up your pub mantras), but not with an inability to understand English. Sorry!desolate said:
reading the links posted by BV It appears an employee can be prevented for actually being employed by a competitor
It is not me saying that. It is Lord Denning and a whole bunch of other Judges saying that. If swerni doesn't believe me, because a bloke in a pub told him otherwise, he is of course free to believe what he wants. desolate said:
Thanks
So if the employee receives say 10k in return for a tighter covenant this doesn't work?
I presume a covenant as part of a shareholder agreement is different?
The consideration provided for a covenant can be one factor amongst many in weighing up whether it is reasonable. A sack of cash is not always a magic wand. Vendor/shareholder covenants can be more extensive than those applied to employees.So if the employee receives say 10k in return for a tighter covenant this doesn't work?
I presume a covenant as part of a shareholder agreement is different?
desolate said:
reading the links posted by BV It appears an employee can be prevented for actually being employed by a competitor
Yes - for example if you worked as an engineer/designer for a particularly litigious maker of vacuum cleaners and tried to work for another manufacturer of vacuum cleaners in another country in the year after you left, then yes they could stop you. Assuming decently drafted clause, also helps if you & new employer seemed to follow the advice of 'bloke in the pub'.However
Some old duffer knight of the realm said:
If the non-compete covenant is a straight covenant against competition and is not aimed at the protection of a legitimate interest. It is unenforceable.
If the Court thinks that there is no competitive overlap between the old and new employers, or that the employee will not be competing because he will be working on something that is no threat to the old employer, then then the court will not grant an injunction. Arguments like this tend to be difficult to win on in practice. For an example of the first argument failing, see Scully v Lee. For an example of the second argument failing, see Hyprotech v Frankum.
Serious suggestion: read a book on the subject. Whatever I say, you will just come up with yet another question, and life is too short. Read a book.
Serious suggestion: read a book on the subject. Whatever I say, you will just come up with yet another question, and life is too short. Read a book.
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, it happens all the time.
If the employer is aware of what you are doing and you are doing it in their interest, can they change their mind and say you shouldn't be doing it? In the eyes of the law that is. Then come after you for breach of confidentiality and fidelity? My case is slightly more complex.Out of interest, how much does it cost a company (very roughly) to take an ex-employee to court and impose an injunction?
Edited by T5SOR on Friday 24th July 16:29
A non compete clause can sometimes be upheld to protect confidential information. In other situations, the employer may be confined to a non solicitation or non dealing clause. A restraint on competition per se would not be upheld, but a restraint on competition that protects a legitimate interest and is suitably limited in duration and scope can be and very often will be upheld. Hyprotech shows an employer in a techie business with some really techie secrets preventing an engineer from going to work for one of its key business rivals for a year (on top of his period of garden leave). Even in selling jobs, there may be enough info to support a non compete. It all depends!
I am getting thirsty, but my drinking partner is stuck in traffic. Blooming cars!
I am getting thirsty, but my drinking partner is stuck in traffic. Blooming cars!
T5SOR said:
If the employer is aware of what you are doing and you are doing it in their interest, can they change their mind and say you shouldn't be doing it? In the eyes of the law that is. Then come after you for breach of confidentiality and fidelity? My case is slightly more complex.
Out of interest, how much does it cost a company (very roughly) to take an ex-employee to court and impose an injunction?
How long is a piece of string? In this case, very long, and this sort of string is very expensive. As you have a real case, and you say a complex one, go and talk to a real lawyer. I am tolerably certain that there is more than one side to your story, and I would not begin to advise you without knowing all the facts. That is not an invitation to tell me all the facts. I am not going to give you any advice. Except this: Do NOT take advice from made up people on what, after all, is a car forum. Out of interest, how much does it cost a company (very roughly) to take an ex-employee to court and impose an injunction?
Edited by T5SOR on Friday 24th July 16:29
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th July 16:49
swerni said:
Breadvan72 said:
If the Court thinks that there is no competitive overlap between the old and new employers, or that the employee will not be competing because he will be working on something that is no threat to the old employer, then then the court will not grant an injunction. Arguments like this tend to be difficult to win on in practice. For an example of the first argument failing, see Scully v Lee. For an example of the second argument failing, see Hyprotech v Frankum.
Serious suggestion: read a book on the subject. Whatever I say, you will just come up with yet another question, and life is too short. Read a book.
Promise, last question, ( I would read a book but the tend to have long words in)Serious suggestion: read a book on the subject. Whatever I say, you will just come up with yet another question, and life is too short. Read a book.
If OP goes to a new company, which is deemed to be a competitor.
He doesn't sell to any companies he has either sold to in the past (period stated in the contract) or clients he may have directly or indirectly been involved in or even companies his last firm are engaged in to, Is this seen as competing in the eyes of the law?
I have no idea ( happy to admit that) but am sure you know the answer.
If for example his technical role gave him insight into a future pipeline of product(confidential knowledge) and he was to be working in the same area, then it could be argued that he would not be able to 'chinese wall' his brain to an extent that he would not be using this confidential information in the new role. In this case there could be a reasonable interest to protect and a restriction could be enforced.
Breadvan72 said:
How long is a piece of string? In this case, very long, and this sort of string is very expensive. As you have a real case, and you say a complex one, go and talk to a real lawyer. I am tolerably certain that there is more than one side to your story, and I would not begin to advise you without knowing all the facts. That is not an invitation to tell me all the facts. I am not going to give you any advice. Except this: Do NOT take advice from made up people on what, after all, is a car forum.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 24th July 16:49
Thanks. I do have a solicitor who is working on it. This thread just caught my interest.
Breadvan72 said:
hman said:
...
Personally (and this is not legal advice) I would ignore them until a court summons appeared - but thats just me.
Saying "I am not advising you, but here is some advice" is what banks do when selling mouldy financials services products, but it doesn't always get them out of the slammer. Anyway whether or not that is that legal advice, it is is really, really, crap advice. Personally (and this is not legal advice) I would ignore them until a court summons appeared - but thats just me.
One person's experience is of little or no value as evidence to support a generalised position. The bloke who thinks that he gets better when he takes homeopathy pills made of magical water and unicorn dust is not proving that homeopathy works.
It's not advice, and I didn't write nor insinuate "I am not advising you, but here's some advice",
Including the words magical water, unicorn dust is a poor attempt to strengthen your disdain for others approaches and opinions of a situation.
I know how often letters before court proceedings fizzle out into nothing, of course I'm sure every solicitor in the land would rather their services were engaged at the merest hint of impending legal proceedings. However that's not the way I would deal with it - you may differ, and that's your perogative,
Thing is you don't get to hear about all people who ignore the letters before court proceedings and never receive a summons and who don't then need to enlist the services of a legal rep.
Now try not to go off on one about unicorns or some other irrelevant tat.
Hman - word to the wise, but Breadvan is one of the leading employment barristers in London. I believe he has specific and recognised expertise in restrictive covenants in employment contracts. He's advised me on a thread recently, and his advice was more than sound. He's also given me a small amount of advice on restrictive covenants in my own contract - he may be slightly abrupt, but he knows his shizzle.
Actus Reus said:
Hman - word to the wise, but Breadvan is one of the leading employment barristers in London. I believe he has specific and recognised expertise in restrictive covenants in employment contracts. He's advised me on a thread recently, and his advice was more than sound. He's also given me a small amount of advice on restrictive covenants in my own contract - he may be slightly abrupt, but he knows his shizzle.
you....................... I bet your one of those types who splits up pub fights toowsurfa said:
In case BV's martini has arrived......it depends.
If for example his technical role gave him insight into a future pipeline of product(confidential knowledge) and he was to be working in the same area, then it could be argued that he would not be able to 'chinese wall' his brain to an extent that he would not be using this confidential information in the new role. In this case there could be a reasonable interest to protect and a restriction could be enforced.
Spot on - that is exactly what happened in a case I did not long ago. If for example his technical role gave him insight into a future pipeline of product(confidential knowledge) and he was to be working in the same area, then it could be argued that he would not be able to 'chinese wall' his brain to an extent that he would not be using this confidential information in the new role. In this case there could be a reasonable interest to protect and a restriction could be enforced.
PS: why is my head so hurty, Mummy?
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff