Ex Employer trying to damage my reputation

SarEl

Jarndyce wrote: »

Equally not wanting to go into bat for Acas...

...but I thought that the ruling in Dawnay Day & Co meant that a blanket restriction on setting up in competition was void and unenforceable as a contract term? That case set out three categories of legitimate business interest which could be protected - trade connections (thus preventing outright 'poaching' from lists of customers); workforce stability (ie you can't take colleagues with you) and trade secrets (eg formulae etc). Simply outlawing competition as such is not therefore covered.

As usual I look forward to being stood corrected!

A blanket restriction is - but one that is for six months only and limited to 5 miles radius isn't a blanket restruction. The test is whether it is reaosnable within the circumstances, and the more limted the time and radius of the restriction, the more enforceable it is. The more appropriate ruling would be Office Angels Ltd. v. Rainer-Thomas. In Dawnay the restrictive covenenat was a blanket ban for two years. That would be in an unreasonable restraint of trade. Six months and 5 miles would not be.

Sambucus_Nigra

MissMotivation wrote: »

I have so far refrained from making any negative comments about him and only confirmed that I used to work for him, this seems to be working in my favour.

Even better; smile and say 'he is obviously not up to the competition and you can only draw your own conclusions from his lack of professionalism. Now, shall we discuss.....'

SarEl

MissMotivation wrote: »

Just playing Devils advocate here BUT if I did break the terms of the contract by working for a competitor because that was the only vacancy available what would be the outcome?

It wouldn't matter if that was the only vacancy available - if it is enforceable (and in this case I think it is) then it is enforceable.The outcome is a bit harder - it isn't my area of law, and I don't deal with contract law of this type. I know that they can sue for quantifiable loss - so customers accounts who may have switched businesses from theirs to your new one? But you would be liable for their legal costs if they won. To be honest, like I said, it is one of those things that rarely comes up (I know of only two cases personally and that is over a period of 30 years - all the rest I know of are cases I have read about!), but it most often rears its head when one party tries to sue the other!

Jarndyce

SarEl wrote: »

A blanket restriction is - but one that is for six months only and limited to 5 miles radius isn't a blanket restruction. The test is whether it is reaosnable within the circumstances, and the more limted the time and radius of the restriction, the more enforceable it is. The more appropriate ruling would be Office Angels Ltd. v. Rainer-Thomas. In Dawnay the restrictive covenenat was a blanket ban for two years. That would be in an unreasonable restraint of trade. Six months and 5 miles would not be.

Not convinced. Dawnay was a later case that Office Angels, and the judgement went way beyond its own facts.

It stated that "Restrictive covenants may be enforced so long as the covenantee has a legitimate interest to protect and the covenant is no wider than is necessary to protect that interest". However it also went on to define "legitimate interest" as the three categories listed in my post above, and not including the avoidance of competition as such. I would argue that this means that NO restriction on competition per se can be enforceable.

SarEl

Jarndyce wrote: »

Not convinced. Dawnay was a later case that Office Angels, and the judgement went way beyond its own facts.

It stated that "Restrictive covenants may be enforced so long as the covenantee has a legitimate interest to protect and the covenant is no wider than is necessary to protect that interest". However it also went on to define "legitimate interest" as the three categories listed in my post above, and not including the avoidance of competition as such. I would argue that this means that NO restriction on competition per se can be enforceable.

Unfortunately the courts do not agree with you. There was a recent case of a very similar restrictive covenent - six months and a ten mile radius. He argued (unsuccessfully) that this was unreasonable becasue there was no alternative employment outside that radius due to the specific nature of his work, and his loss of his job was through no fault of his own (redundancy). What was his highpowered job? - baggage handler in a freight yard attached to Heathrow airport.

Dawnay did not supercede Office Angels in essential facts. In fact it relied on it for some of the argument. There have been numerous cases of restrictive covenents being upheld (although admittedly, they generally only happen with more senior staff) as reasonable because of the knowledge that someone has of their former employers business which they can take to a competitor - hence the continuing emphasis in such judgements on the reasonableness of the limitations in both time and geographical restrictions. You are drawing your definition of competition too tightly - the business knowledge that someone takes with them cannot be cut out of their minds, and therefore can be used to undermine their former employer by offering more attractive prices or to entice customers away. In the case of the baggage handler, for example, although he had no knowledge of the contracting details, he perforce knew every single customer the firm had, and could have given that list to any competitor, enabling them to directly approach another firms client base.

Jarndyce

Blimey - Who was representing the poor old baggage handler? Sue, Grabbitt and Runne?

OK so to be enforceable they have to be proportionate and reasonable and genuinely be protecting a legitimate business interest, and if the employer sued then it would be for them to prove reasonableness and also prove the breach.

I still think the OP is pretty safe.

xangeleyes

Oh, tough one.

Have you tried talking to him about this? He's obviously trying to track you down, perhaps listen to what he has to say?

You've done nothing wrong here. You never know, he might offer you a better paid job lol. He's obviously threatened by you because you've done so well, why else would he be acting this way and slating your name?

Try not let him get to you, to be honest, if I went to a business and all the manager/owner did was slag off another company/people, then I wouldn't find him very nice or trustworthy and I'd go else where.

Chin up, you've done great

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

It wouldn't matter if that was the only vacancy available - if it is enforceable (and in this case I think it is) then it is enforceable.The outcome is a bit harder - it isn't my area of law, and I don't deal with contract law of this type. I know that they can sue for quantifiable loss - so customers accounts who may have switched businesses from theirs to your new one? But you would be liable for their legal costs if they won. To be honest, like I said, it is one of those things that rarely comes up (I know of only two cases personally and that is over a period of 30 years - all the rest I know of are cases I have read about!), but it most often rears its head when one party tries to sue the other!

It seems to me that OP could be shown to be in breach. So case over? Well, there is a matter of remedy. OP could not now be ordered to cease working for the new employer as the covenant no longer applies. It just leaves the question of damages. Quantifiable damages for working for a competitor for 6 weeks towards the end of a covenant period?

Now if the visits from this character to the OP's present office are viewed in the frame of harassment, we have something which has both a criminal and a civil side. Add to that, the bad mouthing as harassment [need to look at the definition of harassment].

It is a risky strategy, but this looks like a complaint which is worth getting on the table ASAP - informally if there is a way of doing it and formally by solicitor's letter just before this character starts any action of his own based on the covenant. So that everything looks eminently suitable for an out of court settlement where everyone winds their necks in.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

It seems to me that OP could be shown to be in breach. So case over? Well, there is a matter of remedy. OP could not now be ordered to cease working for the new employer as the covenant no longer applies. It just leaves the question of damages. Quantifiable damages for working for a competitor for 6 weeks towards the end of a covenant period?

Now if the visits from this character to the OP's present office are viewed in the frame of harassment, we have something which has both a criminal and a civil side. Add to that, the bad mouthing as harassment [need to look at the definition of harassment].

It is a risky strategy, but this looks like a complaint which is worth getting on the table ASAP - informally if there is a way of doing it and formally by solicitor's letter just before this character starts any action of his own based on the covenant. So that everything looks eminently suitable for an out of court settlement where everyone winds their necks in.

I think you may have been missing my point - we did get off the track somewhat. The OP's former employer hasn't threatened this (and probably hasn't thought of it!) - he appears to be just genuinely, well, not a very nice person. My concern was that if the law starts getting involved - well, lawyers have their own way of dealing with things, and things could get out of hand. If the behaviour cannot be ignored - and that is still the best option, because frankly, bullies like this are known for who and what they are, and few people listen to them - and actually causes the OP some quantifiable loss to her, then she could sue for this (given the evidence of course), but that is what is likley to lead to counter-suing, and then it gets messy and costly.

Mistral001

SarEl wrote: »

I think you may have been missing my point - we did get off the track somewhat. The OP's former employer hasn't threatened this (and probably hasn't thought of it!) - he appears to be just genuinely, well, not a very nice person. My concern was that if the law starts getting involved - well, lawyers have their own way of dealing with things, and things could get out of hand. If the behaviour cannot be ignored - and that is still the best option, because frankly, bullies like this are known for who and what they are, and few people listen to them - and actually causes the OP some quantifiable loss to her, then she could sue for this (given the evidence of course), but that is what is likley to lead to counter-suing, and then it gets messy and costly.

I see your thinking. Better to not use the courts to settle this one. Worst case senario is possibly as follows. OP sues ex-employer for slander. Ex-employer sues OP for breach of contract. New employer does not like all these goings on and sacks OP claiming that exact details of non-competitor clause was not mentioned at interview. Ex-employer and OP win their respective cases and sums of money pass both ways cancelling out each other. New employer is taken to an employment tribunial by OP for wrongful dismissal and loses. No winners really.