working for a competitor....

[SickFish]

Jonsv8 said:

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 don't see that company 2 can enforce anything about me dealing with customer x through company 3.

The contract customer x has is always with the company and not with you. They employ you to bring in business.

Which of the clauses do you have most issue with?

a and b are pretty much a slam dunk for them, very common and you're on a hiding to nothing if that's what you want to do

c you'd need a solicitor but it strikes me as a restraint of trade

d looks like a variation of a to me for people in a non-sales capacity where your services are what the customer wants to buy.

e looks reasonable too.

As said by many, and I know its what you're trying to do, you need professional advice but if your intention is a, b, possibly d or e then I think you're going to struggle. c is the slightly dubious one, but if c is unfair then you may win on all counts as the contract could be voided.

If the market is very niche and specialized then your new employer will presumably have issues recruiting skilled people. They may be very willing to come to agreement with you.

I'll assume you're talking to me (the OP) essentially, what I want to do is option C.... Move to another company in the same industry offering similar goods. The market isn't niche and specialized in that it's particularly "special" it's just that there aren't a huge amount of companies offering the same goods (industrial machines).

[SickFish]

Jonsv8 said:

SickFish said:

I'll assume you're talking to me (the OP) essentially, what I want to do is option C.... Move to another company in the same industry offering similar goods. The market isn't niche and specialized in that it's particularly "special" it's just that there aren't a huge amount of companies offering the same goods (industrial machines).

Hi yes - got lost with who the OP was!

Definitely worth the legal advice then as that's the one I feel is the most dubious. It would be like telling a chef he couldn't cook for anyone else. I struggle to see how their statement as to why its protecting their interests applies unless it falls into one of the other clauses (they have to have a reason why they are applying the restraint). c on its own pretty much prevents you even being in a position to do the others things if you wanted to.

That's what I thought too, its quite a "catch-all" statement... I thought it had to refer to my specific territory and couldn't be overly broad.

[SickFish]

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

[SickFish]

mikees said:

cat with a hat said:

SickFish said:

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

Jesus!

Ditto. Seems like knob vindictive directors. Is it worth it? God knows. Sorry to hear about it.

That is EXACTLY IT

[SickFish]

swerni said:

SickFish said:

mikees said:

cat with a hat said:

SickFish said:

Well.... time for a thread resurrection... looks like there is a strong chance I will be going to court.... I have just received a "Letter Before Action" from my ex employers solicitor.... sigh.... deep joy

I could really do without this.

Edited by SickFish on Thursday 23 July 17:26

Jesus!

Ditto. Seems like knob vindictive directors. Is it worth it? God knows. Sorry to hear about it.

That is EXACTLY IT

Which clause are they saying you broke?

It's massively unclear as they make direct reference to A, C and D, however, I believe it is clause C they are pushing

[SickFish]

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.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 24th July 09:46

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.

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

[SickFish]

Hi BV, do you have any comments on the covenants, obviously I won't hold you to them, but all ears to learned opinions.

Feel free to PM me should you prefer

[SickFish]

Haha

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 wasn't looking for a cast iron, insured answer from you, just a friendly opinion

Edited by SickFish on Friday 24th July 11:05

[SickFish]

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.

[SickFish]

Within the letter it doesn't mention injunctions, just that I may be liable for damage / loss of earnings. I have no idea how they can begin to quantity a loss....

[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!

[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.

[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

[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