working for a competitor....
Discussion
Completely agree, think that breadvan was taking a break from this subforum due to the armchair experts too, and still indirectly provided the correct advice on this thread.
OP best of luck to you, I do wonder what kind of damages they can get off you though. Suppose it depends on whether they think you have the assets to bother chasing.
OP best of luck to you, I do wonder what kind of damages they can get off you though. Suppose it depends on whether they think you have the assets to bother chasing.
Kudos to the few above who tried to give the OP the correct steer. Pity you were drowned out by the pub-law numpties.
OP, if your employer means business, and it may do, you may be about to enter a World of s
t. Get professional help asap.
PPS: I last tried a covenant case in March. I was for the employer. The employee thought our covenants were a joke. He doesn't think that now. Oh, by the way, my client was awarded costs. By next week, the employee may not own his house any more.
OP, if your employer means business, and it may do, you may be about to enter a World of s
t. Get professional help asap.PPS: I last tried a covenant case in March. I was for the employer. The employee thought our covenants were a joke. He doesn't think that now. Oh, by the way, my client was awarded costs. By next week, the employee may not own his house any more.
Breadvan72 said:
This is a paradigm example of why all of you idiots who give legal advice here based on the square root of fk all knowledge and experience should just STFU. You irresponsible jerks encourage people like the OP to get themselves sued. Will all of you armchair experts who insist that covenants are unenforceable please get this into your heads once and for all. Employers can and do sue on restrictive covenants. In most cases, they win. Basis for opinion: decades of doing actual cases about this stuff, not sitting in the internet pub. Pardon me if I seem tetchy, but I am.
OP, go and see a lawyer NOW. One recommendation is David Ludlow at Barlow Robbins. If you have lots of money, call Dan Aherne at Olswang (but I mean lots of money).
I was not active on PH when this thread started, OP. If I had been, I would have tried to save you from the fkwits who were telling you that you had nothing to worry about, but too late.
One more time: Amateur internet experts: You don't have to face the consequences of your ignorance and stupidity. Someone else might have to. Do the decent thing, and SHUT UP.
Hi BV, I did seek legal advice prior to making a decision and my (new) employer did also on my behalf from the company solicitor, they then obtained a second opinion from a private solicitor. k all knowledge and experience should just STFU. You irresponsible jerks encourage people like the OP to get themselves sued. Will all of you armchair experts who insist that covenants are unenforceable please get this into your heads once and for all. Employers can and do sue on restrictive covenants. In most cases, they win. Basis for opinion: decades of doing actual cases about this stuff, not sitting in the internet pub. Pardon me if I seem tetchy, but I am. OP, go and see a lawyer NOW. One recommendation is David Ludlow at Barlow Robbins. If you have lots of money, call Dan Aherne at Olswang (but I mean lots of money).
I was not active on PH when this thread started, OP. If I had been, I would have tried to save you from the f
kwits who were telling you that you had nothing to worry about, but too late.One more time: Amateur internet experts: You don't have to face the consequences of your ignorance and stupidity. Someone else might have to. Do the decent thing, and SHUT UP.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 24th July 09:46
The resounding response from all parties was that they were too broad to be enforceable, I'm in the process of speaking to someone and my employer is doing the same.
P.S. good to see you're back
Munter said:
I think the answer is:
You have to take a 6 month gap between employers, but your existing employer has to pay you to enforce that. (Gardening leave) Otherwise you're free to do what you want. But a Lawyer is likely needed to confirm your exact situation as opposed to general concepts based on assumptions.
Wrong. Last sentence just about saves you from dYou have to take a 6 month gap between employers, but your existing employer has to pay you to enforce that. (Gardening leave) Otherwise you're free to do what you want. But a Lawyer is likely needed to confirm your exact situation as opposed to general concepts based on assumptions.
headery, but why give crappy advice at all? Why not just say "talk to a lawyer"?williaa68 said:
Why not provide your current contract to your prospective new employer and ask them if they will indemnify you if you join and the old employer throws a wobbly? There is no way they are going to seek an injunction - most likely just an exchange of solicitors letters and then you will reach some compromise
Potential dheadery in second sentence. The employer might well seek an injunction if the beef is not resolved by correspondence. Never say never.Tried to PM you - system won't let me for some reason.
I am NOT going to give you specific advice now that your employer has started to power up its Phaser Banks. Shields up, Red alert. Open a hailing frequency. IAAL but IANYL. Go and get a lawyer who is insured to advise you. I am not saying this because I am a meanie or do not want to help. Quite the opposite, in fact!
Do not go to Joe High Street and Co. Tell me where you live and I will point to someone near you, but if need be travel to a big city, as that's where good lawyers tend to cluster.
More corny advice that is sad but true: You can have a cheap lawyer, or you can have a good lawyer. You can't have a good cheap lawyer.
I am NOT going to give you specific advice now that your employer has started to power up its Phaser Banks. Shields up, Red alert. Open a hailing frequency. IAAL but IANYL. Go and get a lawyer who is insured to advise you. I am not saying this because I am a meanie or do not want to help. Quite the opposite, in fact!
Do not go to Joe High Street and Co. Tell me where you live and I will point to someone near you, but if need be travel to a big city, as that's where good lawyers tend to cluster.
More corny advice that is sad but true: You can have a cheap lawyer, or you can have a good lawyer. You can't have a good cheap lawyer.
hman said:
So what happens if :
I work for company 1 and deal with customer x, leave company 1, join company 2 and get in touch with company x this then brings company x into contact with company 2 via myself, I then leave company 2 and company x says they want to keep dealing with me so I take them to company 3.
I dont see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.
You might be made to see, at virtual gunpoint. Depends on what your contract with company 2 says.I work for company 1 and deal with customer x, leave company 1, join company 2 and get in touch with company x this then brings company x into contact with company 2 via myself, I then leave company 2 and company x says they want to keep dealing with me so I take them to company 3.
I dont see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.
Jonsv8 said:
....
c is the slightly dubious one, but if c is unfair then you may win on all counts as the contract could be voided.
....
Wrong. No dc is the slightly dubious one, but if c is unfair then you may win on all counts as the contract could be voided.
....
head as you tried hard and got some bits right, but you are hereby sentenced to go and read what Pope said about a little learning:-A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
Fired at first sight with what the Muse imparts,
In fearless youth we tempt the heights of Arts ;
While from the bounded level of our mind
Short views we take, nor see the lengths behind,
But, more advanced, behold with strange surprise
New distant scenes of endless science rise !
So pleased at first the towering Alps we try,
Mount o’er the vales, and seem to tread the sky ;
The eternal snows appear already past,
And the first clouds and mountains seem the last ;
But those attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labours of the lengthened way ;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes,
Hill peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !
Haha
I wasn't looking for a cast iron, insured answer from you, just a friendly opinion
Breadvan72 said:
Tried to PM you - system won't let me for some reason.
I am NOT going to give you specific advice now that your employer has started to power up its Phaser Banks. Shields up, Red alert. Open a hailing frequency. IAAL but IANYL. Go and get a lawyer who is insured to advise you. I am not saying this because I am a meanie or do not want to help. Quite the opposite, in fact!
Do not go to Joe High Street and Co. Tell me where you live and I will point to someone near you, but if need be travel to a big city, as that's where good lawyers tend to cluster.
More corny advice that is sad but true: You can have a cheap lawyer, or you can have a good lawyer. You can't have a good cheap lawyer.
I contacted Barlow Robins yesterday, as they helped me previously (after your recommendation), if you want I can PM you and you could reply? I am NOT going to give you specific advice now that your employer has started to power up its Phaser Banks. Shields up, Red alert. Open a hailing frequency. IAAL but IANYL. Go and get a lawyer who is insured to advise you. I am not saying this because I am a meanie or do not want to help. Quite the opposite, in fact!
Do not go to Joe High Street and Co. Tell me where you live and I will point to someone near you, but if need be travel to a big city, as that's where good lawyers tend to cluster.
More corny advice that is sad but true: You can have a cheap lawyer, or you can have a good lawyer. You can't have a good cheap lawyer.
I wasn't looking for a cast iron, insured answer from you, just a friendly opinion
Edited by SickFish on Friday 24th July 11:05
That opinion would be of no value. I can see the covenants above, but I would need to know the full factual context, and that would take time. The time for freebies on the internet, even from people who have a vague idea of what they are talking about, is over. You can possibly still talk yourself out of bother, but to do that I suggest that you use Barlow Robbins, who are good at what they do, and are not as crazy expensive as some firms I could alsorecommend.
Breadvan72 said:
That opinion would be of no value. I can see the covenants above, but I would need to know the full factual context, and that would take time. The time for freebies on the internet, even from people who have a vague idea of what they are talking about, is over. You can possibly still talk yourself out of bother, but to do that I suggest that you use Barlow Robbins, who are good at what they do, and are not as crazy expensive as some firms I could alsorecommend.
Fair enough, fully understand that. Appreciate your time anyway, from speaking to my boss this morning he has asked me to forward the letter to him at the office and he will get the company solicitor to respond on my behalf. Worse comes to worse I have legal cover on my home insurance.
Legal insurance policies have a snag as they sometimes insist that you use the insurer's tame lawyers. Those lawyers are almost invariably rubbish.
Not always, however: When my (now ex) wife was sacked for a reason to do with maternity rights several years ago we had an old style policy that allowed us to choose our own lawyers, so she instructed Meriel Schindler at Withers in the City, who proceeded to kick the employers' butt seven shades of sixpence. Extra comedy gold, as the employer in question was a law school, but a very poorly advised one. If you have one of those policies, bonus! If not, you may get lumbered with some hopeless teenage lawyer, or someone who thinks that employment law is all about five grand tribunal claims and has never seen a High Court injunction.
BTW, to those of you talking about damages, these cases usually involve injunctions. Damages are not usually the issue. An injunction is granted is because damages are not an adequate remedy for the injury to the intangiuble goodwill of a business. Trade connections and secret info are often hard to value in cash terms, but that does not mean that the employer has no remedy. Costs become a big issue fast. The new employer will sometimes bankroll the employee that is being fought over, but not always. There is often a deal to be done between the two employers. We High Court employment hacks sometimes refer to these cases as "prisoner exchanges."
Not always, however: When my (now ex) wife was sacked for a reason to do with maternity rights several years ago we had an old style policy that allowed us to choose our own lawyers, so she instructed Meriel Schindler at Withers in the City, who proceeded to kick the employers' butt seven shades of sixpence. Extra comedy gold, as the employer in question was a law school, but a very poorly advised one. If you have one of those policies, bonus! If not, you may get lumbered with some hopeless teenage lawyer, or someone who thinks that employment law is all about five grand tribunal claims and has never seen a High Court injunction.
BTW, to those of you talking about damages, these cases usually involve injunctions. Damages are not usually the issue. An injunction is granted is because damages are not an adequate remedy for the injury to the intangiuble goodwill of a business. Trade connections and secret info are often hard to value in cash terms, but that does not mean that the employer has no remedy. Costs become a big issue fast. The new employer will sometimes bankroll the employee that is being fought over, but not always. There is often a deal to be done between the two employers. We High Court employment hacks sometimes refer to these cases as "prisoner exchanges."
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th July 11:41
It is difficult, but not always impossible, to quantify loss in these cases. Injunctions are the usual first choice remedy because of the difficulty in quantification (and often the loss will not yet have been incurred but might be incurred in the future absent an injunction. Sometimes employers elect not to seek an injunction and sue for financial remedies instead. This may be the case where, for example, the employer has delayed taking action , and so its chances of obtaining an injunction are diminished. One financial remedy is that you are required to account for profits made through unlawful competition. Each case varies.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff