working for a competitor....

[SickFish]

The trouble is the definition of "competition" my employer does not feel that e are direct competitors to my previous employer.

The covenants they are trying to impose upon me make it that I'd need to find a role within a completely different industry, which is ridiculous!

[anonymous-user]

I. Say. Again. Slowly. Take. Some. Advice. Not. On. The. Internet.

[anonymous-user]

P.S. F.F.S

[Jasandjules]

Breadvan72 said:

Legal insurance policies have a snag as they sometimes insist that you use the insurer's tame lawyers. Those lawyers are almost invariably rubbish.

However as you know that is not an enforceable term once proceedings have been issued (it still pains me that they are enforceable before that point, but that is another matter!), Regulation 6 and all that.

[SickFish]

Breadvan72 said:

I. Say. Again. Slowly. Take. Some. Advice. Not. On. The. Internet.

C'mon Gerard, that's unnecessary I've already said more than once that I am, and so is my current employer on my behalf.

[hman]

I watch with interest, having moved multiple times to competitors and having restrictive covenants that were there to prevent me going to competitors - and ignoring every single one, without recourse from any of them.


A letter before court action is the sort of thing I send a bad debt, and half the time its a shot across their bows rather than "go get a solicitor" time. I know that going through the courts is a massive drain on resources and finance, so I weigh up each case on its merits.

I suspect the former employers are doing exactly the same thing - how likely they are to actually proceed is something only they can tell you.

Personally (and this is not legal advice) I would ignore them until a court summons appeared - but thats just me.

[AyBee]

SickFish said:

The trouble is the definition of "competition" my employer does not feel that e are direct competitors to my previous employer.

The covenants they are trying to impose upon me make it that I'd need to find a role within a completely different industry, which is ridiculous!

You said in your OP "I have been approached (discretely) by a direct competitor with a VERY attractive offer." - how is a direct competitor not competition?

[SickFish]

AyBee said:

SickFish said:

The trouble is the definition of "competition" my employer does not feel that e are direct competitors to my previous employer.

The covenants they are trying to impose upon me make it that I'd need to find a role within a completely different industry, which is ridiculous!

You said in your OP "I have been approached (discretely) by a direct competitor with a VERY attractive offer." - how is a direct competitor not competition?

Because my ex employers (who I was working for at the time) considers my current employer a direct competitor, my current employer disagrees and does not consider himself a direct competitor

[T5SOR]

BreadVan- have you ever heard of an employer going after an ex-employee with breach of contract for implied duty of confidentiality and fidelity? Could you get an injunction based on this?

[AyBee]

SickFish said:

AyBee said:

SickFish said:

The trouble is the definition of "competition" my employer does not feel that e are direct competitors to my previous employer.

The covenants they are trying to impose upon me make it that I'd need to find a role within a completely different industry, which is ridiculous!

You said in your OP "I have been approached (discretely) by a direct competitor with a VERY attractive offer." - how is a direct competitor not competition?

Because my ex employers (who I was working for at the time) considers my current employer a direct competitor, my current employer disagrees and does not consider himself a direct competitor

What are the reasons for your ex-employer thinking that they're a competitor? Normally companies poach people because they have something useful to them...

[SickFish]

AyBee said:

SickFish said:

AyBee said:

SickFish said:

The trouble is the definition of "competition" my employer does not feel that e are direct competitors to my previous employer.

The covenants they are trying to impose upon me make it that I'd need to find a role within a completely different industry, which is ridiculous!

You said in your OP "I have been approached (discretely) by a direct competitor with a VERY attractive offer." - how is a direct competitor not competition?

Because my ex employers (who I was working for at the time) considers my current employer a direct competitor, my current employer disagrees and does not consider himself a direct competitor

What are the reasons for your ex-employer thinking that they're a competitor? Normally companies poach people because they have something useful to them...

Main products intended to achieve the same end result, but both in VERY different ways, so also a different target audience

[anonymous-user]

T5SOR said:

BreadVan- have you ever heard of an employer going after an ex-employee with breach of contract for implied duty of confidentiality and fidelity? Could you get an injunction based on this?

I am not a lawyer but I have heard of this. Happens reasonably regularly.

[anonymous-user]

T5SOR said:

BreadVan- have you ever heard of an employer going after an ex-employee with breach of contract for implied duty of confidentiality and fidelity? Could you get an injunction based on this?

Yes, it happens all the time.

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

T5SOR said:

BreadVan- have you ever heard of an employer going after an ex-employee with breach of contract for implied duty of confidentiality and fidelity? Could you get an injunction based on this?

I am not a lawyer but I have heard of this. Happens reasonably regularly.

IANAL also - but regularly(ish) bump against PTRCs and related - and yes this does happen and can be/is complex in interpreting the duties.

An example being that if at interview you hear of information that would benefit your current employer but would damage the prospective employer then the duty to your current employer doesn't necessarily trump that of the prospective/new employer.

A quick google will give you some case law to read if you fancy 100's of points, 1000's of words and many other case law references, recent(ish) example was Customer Systems vs Ranson

[anonymous-user]

swerni said:

And you get a "fk YOU' for being an obnoxious tt.
This is motoring forum ( in case you didn't realise) not a legal forum.

So please explain how youcan stop a person going to a competitor if they aren't going to be selling to the same customers or in breach of the other specific terms?
Aren't they meant to be reasonable?

Cheers, I'll put it with the others. Motoring? Oh yeah, lot of cars in this bit of the Forum! Nothing to do with legal advice at all. PS: the answer is MX5. Sorry, 320D.

Tell you what, if you thirst for knowledge, why not try reading Goulding et al on employee Competition, OUP, second edition (third edition out soonish - I have just finished updating the chapter on restrictive covenants). It's even got a bunch of fancy-ass cases in it and stuff. Or you could try the competition's offering - Brearley and Bloch, but that's just the same stuff without the knob gags. I CBA trying to educate those who already have Doctorates from the University of Pub, not least because whatever I say they will come up with some more "but what if..." (answer: it depends) and "my sister's friend's cousin's milkman's lawyer's cleaning lady says...". Anyway, I am busy talking about cars (yes, cars!) elsewhere on PH, so toodles, and have a good weekend.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th July 15:01

[anonymous-user]

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.

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.

Pop over to the interim applications court in the QB Division of the High Court in the Strand on any given day and you are almost certain to be able to watch at least one and possibly several different applications made by employers to enforce obligations against employees (former or current). Some times the employees win, but more often than not the employer wins. Most cases settle, but often not until there has been a hoo hah and a fair chunk of petrol money has been torched.

[anonymous-user]

swerni said:

Wow i'm impressed you took the bother to type all that, i really am.
If I were after legal advise I'd speak to a lawyer rather than post on PH, funny old world.

I'm not doubting your knowledge ( I'm not that mad) but is it your time of the month?


Back to the original point.
Does a restrictive covenant not have to be reasonable?

Depends on the contract.

If the employee received consideration then it can be very unreasonable. Or so I am advised.

[anonymous-user]

Desolate, you are very badly advised. A covenant has to be reasonable. In appropriate circumstances, a covenant could restrain competition for a limited period and need not be focused on a specific category of customer. Look at the specific business circumstances and at the precise wording. Context is everything.

There are a million cases on this, but for a simple summary see Littlewoods v Harris. Applied all the time. See for example Hyprotech v Frankum, March 2015.

Cia ciao, off to Martiniville, early doors.

[anonymous-user]

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?

[anonymous-user]

swerni said:

Only one person that can tell if he did.

Sorry I don't understand - What do you mean?

BV has trumped my pub talk anyway I think.