non compete clause
Author
Discussion

shep1001

Original Poster:

4,620 posts

218 months

Sunday 12th August 2012
quotequote all
In the not to distant future I (and my colleagues) expect to get a new employment contract to 'homologate' us within the company that took over my employer 2-3 yrs ago. In general what is good will get even better. I understand they like to slip the 'old 12 mnth non compete' clause in contracts these days in addition to my 16wks notice. Now I don't intend on leaving as I have 20yrs service & I like my job so from that aspect a NC clause is not an issue. If however, I was to be made redundant or offered voluntary redundancy in the future, can a NC clause still be enforced?

Shep

Edited by shep1001 on Sunday 12th August 09:27

72EuropaTC

207 posts

236 months

Sunday 12th August 2012
quotequote all
Firstly, depends on the nature of the NC clause. Factors are the amount of time, the location and the actual nature of the work e.g. 12 months within the UK - highly unlikely to be upheld; 3-6 months in same town - depends upon trade and whether it's a reasonable means of protecting the employer's interests.

But, NC would only apply if you left the company of your own accord. i.e. the clause is there to stop you gaining knowledge then b*gg*ring off to set up your own business in competition.

If the company makes you redundant then any NC clause should be void - it's the employer's intention that has caused the separation, not yours. You might want to check the paperwork when you see it. If it doesn't have such a note then you could try and ask for one to be added.

rog007

5,828 posts

253 months

Monday 13th August 2012
quotequote all
In the United Kingdom, Restraint of Trade clauses may be used only if the employer can prove a legitimate business interest to protect in entering the clause into the contract. Mere competition will not amount to a legitimate business interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

A recent case under appeal may also provide useful background, although this case was about time during employment.

http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/2012/07/articles...


Puggit

49,789 posts

277 months

Monday 13th August 2012
quotequote all
I have a NC clause which prevents me working for any competitor within EMEA for 12 months - by all accounts this NC clause is totally unenforceable.

anonymous-user

83 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
"All accounts" may well be wrong. In a suitable business context, a carefully drafted 12 month non competition clause could be enforceable.

Take expert advice before acting in a manner inconsistent with any post termination restrictive covenant. Bloke in pub and internet wisdom says that they are not enforceable. High Court Judges regularly decide otherwise.

I act in these cases regularly, and have written part of a textbook on the subject, so I hope to offer more than bloke in pub perspectives on this.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st August 20:17

anonymous-user

83 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
PS: OP, redundancy would not alter the enforceability of a restrictive covenant. A wrongful dismissal (that is: one in breach of contract), would invalidate the covenant.

Otherwise, its validity would depend on the business context and the precise wording, applying the principle that only a reasonable restraint which protects a legitimate business interest is enforceable.

shep1001

Original Poster:

4,620 posts

218 months

Tuesday 21st August 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
PS: OP, redundancy would not alter the enforceability of a restrictive covenant. A wrongful dismissal (that is: one in breach of contract), would invalidate the covenant.

Otherwise, its validity would depend on the business context and the precise wording, applying the principle that only a reasonable restraint which protects a legitimate business interest is enforceable.
Thanks for the info. I will wait to see what pops up in the new contract & take legal advise before signing my new contract.


Edited by shep1001 on Tuesday 21st August 21:57

anonymous-user

83 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
You could even be a tad cheeky and ask your employer to contribute to the cost of advice, as part of the sweetener for agreeing the new deal. If the takeover was a TUPE takeover, and not a share purchase, then you can't be compelled to change your contract because of the transfer, even some time after it. Subsidised legal advice could, however, weigh with the court in favour of the employer if there were to be a dispute about the reasonableness of contract later.

shep1001

Original Poster:

4,620 posts

218 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
You could even be a tad cheeky and ask your employer to contribute to the cost of advice, as part of the sweetener for agreeing the new deal. If the takeover was a TUPE takeover, and not a share purchase, then you can't be compelled to change your contract because of the transfer, even some time after it. Subsidised legal advice could, however, weigh with the court in favour of the employer if there were to be a dispute about the reasonableness of contract later.
No it was share purchase. I believe where they have had issues in the past extended garden leave has been used instead. 12 months paid leave with all your 'frilly bits' is the norm where they don't want people making a fuss. When a suitable job appears your back on board.

anonymous-user

83 months

Wednesday 22nd August 2012
quotequote all
Garden leave is a safer bet for the employer, but is expensive. An over long period of garden leave can be challenged as unreasonable.