Advice on post termination obligations

[april wrath]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 06 January 2026 at 13:28

[mr_spock]

What's the amendment?

[Mr Pointy]

What are they going to do if you refuse to sign the amendment?

[Mr Pointy]

Have you shown the existing agreement to your company & what is their view of the implication of the wording of the first clause? Do they agree with you that it bars you from poaching clients (to put it crudely)? If so, then surely you just draw up the list of barred clients & start your new job.

At this point you really need some professional advice & certainly before you sign anything else.

[Mr Pointy]

There are a couple of posters who are qualified to comment (although Breadvan72 has given it up) so you may get a more meaningful response if one of them spots it. I'm not saying much more in case I incur the wrath of He Who Must Not Be Named.

[leemanning]

april wrath said:

Thank you for all the responses so far.

Mr. Pointy, I have shown the agreement to my new employer, and like me, they also interpret it as a non-solicitation clause that forbids me from reaching to clients I have materially dealt with the last 12 months of my employment (as is the definition of "Client" on the document). My current employer's HR keeps insisting that the clause specifies that I cannot get another job in the industry; I have seen a clause like that in other contracts, and it is always very clearly noted as a restriction, but not in mine.

It is standard practice to agree on a list of clients, and we are working on this. All ex-colleagues that have the company did that, but none of them was asked to do an amendment apart from a colleague two months ago. I am not the most senior person leaving, and my contract is less restrictive than everyone else's....

I have reached out for legal advice and I am waiting to hear back. It is so annoying that they are doing all this on my last week, especially since I have 3 months' notice. I bet they thought I would sign anything they give me.

That's exactly what that is, it's a non-solicitation clause. There's no mention of a non-compete anywhere in the T's & C's you published earlier. I think your existing employer is getting mixed up

[april wrath]

Thank you, leemanning. It is difficult to convince them that I don't have a non-compete clause... Seems clear to me, but I am no expert! I will get the legal advice just to be sure, and move on with my life.

[Jasandjules]

Is the new employer operating in the same sphere as your current one? (which I rather suspect will then bring it within the post termination restrictions) Is your new role going to be similar to that of your old? Are you intending to contact those clients with whom you had material dealings within the last twelve months with a view to engaging them with your new employer? If so, well, you can see why these clauses exist.....

Then, in part the question is how much of a risk do you want to take? Your soon to be former employer could take legal action against you to seek to enforce the terms. Whether they decide to do so in another question.

[edc]

From a previous employer perspective and whilst each case and drafting is different we have been granted an injunction to enforce such clauses.

It is always hard for an employee to know an employer's attitude to chasing these down. It is not always a case of 'its to costly to enforce'.

[fat80b]

april wrath said:

What pisses me off the most....

My advice would be - Don't worry about anyone else and what they might have done differently. This serves you no positive benefit. If anything, the fact they are treating you differently says that they see you as a threat / actually value you more than the others....

Spend your energy on the clause that you have and what it means to you - nothing else matters.

april wrath said:

4.1.1 for a period of six (6) months after the Termination Date, in connection with a Restricted Business, either on the Employee's own account or for or in association with any other person or otherwise, directly or indirectly, canvass, solicit, approach or seek out or cause to be canvassed, solicited, approached or sought out any Client for orders or instructions in relation to a Restricted Function or induce any Client to cease conducting any, or reduce the amount of, business with the Company or adversely vary the terms upon which any business is conducted with the Company;

4.1.2 for a period of six (6) months after the Termination Date, either on the Employee's own account or for or in association with any other person or otherwise, directly or indirectly, and in connection with any Restricted Business, deal with any Client in relation to a Restricted Function; and

IANAL but I'd be concerned about the 'cause to' and 'indirectly' bits in 4.1.1 - How might that be interpreted? - If you work for a new place and someone else who now works with you engages with a customer of your old firm, might you have to prove that you had nothing to do with it - how might this be done.

You could read it as 'cause to be approached' which is a little strange - it could be as simple as an existing customer seeing you are at a new place on LI and then contacting someone else who now works there. (maybe a bit of a stretch)

4.1.2 would seem to be covered by the list of restricted business (is this defined anywhere or can they just magically produce a super long list.)

[fat80b]

april wrath said:

On other news, my employer was rather cheeky

Long story short, they hoped I had misplaced my paperwork after 7 years and didn't have a PDF copy, so they tried to see if they can convince me to sign a more restrictive clause which they will then amend out of good will....Solicitor said if I had signed it would be binding. Lesson learnt: always keep your employment paperwork in a safe place!!!!

wow - that's pretty bad.

I'm glad you got it sorted though and that you are out of that place - they sound deeply unpleasant and spiteful

I wonder what their glassdoor reviews say

[Mr Pointy]

Is there any possibility that since you can prove they were acting deceptively in changing the contract & then saying it's what you signed that they have been acting in bad faith & that the contract is void? It would be nice if that were so but maybe it's just a pipe-dream & since you didn't actually sign anything there was no foul. You could ask your solicitor though.

It would be funny if you were now free to contact your old clients & poach a couple of staff.

[Puggit]

april wrath said:

Thanks everyone!
Long story short, they hoped I had misplaced my paperwork after 7 years and didn't have a PDF copy, so they tried to see if they can convince me to sign a more restrictive clause which they will then amend out of good will....Solicitor said if I had signed it would be binding. Lesson learnt: always keep your employment paperwork in a safe place!!!!

I put every piece of employment paperwork up in Dropbox. Never to be mis-lade...

[edc]

Strike the parts out initial and sign against it. Add a copy of your contract. Add a short cover note explaining your understanding of the restrictions that apply to you and email it back with your solicitor on CC. Explain that any further erroneous correspondence will be invoiced to them from your solicitor.

[Mr Pointy]

edc said:

Strike the parts out initial and sign against it. Add a copy of your contract. Add a short cover note explaining your understanding of the restrictions that apply to you and email it back with your solicitor on CC. Explain that any further erroneous correspondence will be invoiced to them from your solicitor.

The OP doesn't need to respond or do anything & signing any new document, even with bits struck out, could always land him in trouble. He has the original signed contract & his solicitor's advice & he's left the company.

[shep1001]

Hypothetically, How would this work if the competitor, who was your new employer, already worked directly and extensively with client accounts of your existing employer that you had previously been involved with?

My restrictive covenant is slightly different in that the ‘6 months’ runs concurrently with my notice period, as it was the only way the lawyers believed it would be enforceable, as my employer would not be creating hardship (by paying me to sit at home) in what is a small but very incestuous industry.

I know paid advice is best in these instances, which thankfully is passing me by again.

[

Edited by shep1001 on Friday 18th September 07:14

[anonymous-user]

april wrath said:

they have said that they cannot release me from clause 4.1.1 until they have the details of the company I am going to and the role that i am going to take which will need to be included as an exception on the amendment.

It's a fishing exercise.

Abide by the terms of your existing contract, which it sounds like you have no problem with, and don't sign anything else.

[bennno]

Don’t sign anything else, don’t share you have taken any legal advice, don’t accept any offer for them to fund any legal advice.

It becomes more enforceable if they become aware you have taken advice.

[anonymous-user]

bennno said:

Don’t sign anything else, don’t share you have taken any legal advice, don’t accept any offer for them to fund any legal advice.

It becomes more enforceable if they become aware you have taken advice.

Rubbish!

Where do people get such tosh?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 September 12:25

[anonymous-user]

A term in a contract is either enforceable when it is made, or it is not. The idea that the term could later become "more enforceable" (a meaningless concept) because one party becomes aware that the other party has taken advice about the clause is beyond fatuous.