Restrictive covenants - advice needed!

stator

Do you know why they don't want you to work there?
What is your business?

Usually contracts like this have terms that prevent you from poaching clients/customers/suppliers etc

What's the worst you could do whilst working for their competitors?

TELLIT01

bigdavecox90 wrote: »

Thanks Undervalued, I expected this to be the case.

So realistically, there is no way I can claim that I'm being treated unfairly? Surely if I have proof from others that they were not 'prosecuted', this would help my case?

That argument is only likely to carry any weight if somebody who was doing exactly the same job as you had already move across to the other company. Even then, your employer could claim that they weren't aware of the previous instance.
If you're hoping to be able to take up the job without potential comeback you really to need to speak to a legal beagle with expertise in this area.

Gavin83

Are they continuing to pay your salary for that 6 month period?

Undervalued

Gavin83 wrote: »

Are they continuing to pay your salary for that 6 month period?

There is no reason why they should!

The OP signed up to a contract with this clause. That was his decision. So, unless the clause is legally unenforceable he has chosen to be bound by it.

Such clauses are not uncommon and providing they are drafted within certain limits they are perfectly lawful. As stated earlier all the OP can do is seek an expert legal opinion on his specific contract. Even then it is only an expert opinion on what they think a court would decide if it got that far.

The bottom line really is don't agree to something you will later regret.

steampowered

Unless there is actually a very good reason why your employer needs to restrict someone in your type of role from working for a competitor, I'd think you would have a pretty good argument to say that the clause is unenforceable.

A clause which simply says you can't work for a competitor is extremely broad and not likely to be enforceable unless you are in a particularly sensitive role.

You could just go ahead and, if your employer challenges you, take the view that the clause probably isn't enforceable. This isn't risk free, and as sangie says there is a risk of your new employer getting upset if they get dragged into it, but it could be a reasonable risk that is well worth taking.

tea_lover

steampowered wrote: »

Unless there is actually a very good reason why your employer needs to restrict someone in your type of role from working for a competitor, I'd think you would have a pretty good argument to say that the clause is unenforceable.

A clause which simply says you can't work for a competitor is extremely broad and not likely to be enforceable unless you are in a particularly sensitive role.

You could just go ahead and, if your employer challenges you, take the view that the clause probably isn't enforceable. This isn't risk free, and as sangie says there is a risk of your new employer getting upset if they get dragged into it, but it could be a reasonable risk that is well worth taking.

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? It's in the contract with the OP has signed. Ok, it's not convenient but that doesn't mean it's not enforceable.

Undervalued

steampowered wrote: »

Unless there is actually a very good reason why your employer needs to restrict someone in your type of role from working for a competitor, I'd think you would have a pretty good argument to say that the clause is unenforceable.

A clause which simply says you can't work for a competitor is extremely broad and not likely to be enforceable unless you are in a particularly sensitive role.

You could just go ahead and, if your employer challenges you, take the view that the clause probably isn't enforceable. This isn't risk free, and as sangie says there is a risk of your new employer getting upset if they get dragged into it, but it could be a reasonable risk that is well worth taking.

Given that the OP has already resigned, unless his employer is willing to allow him to withdraw the resignation that may be his best option.

However the biggest danger is that his current employer's get their solicitor to write to the new company threatening legal action. Although the risk of such action happening, let alone being successful, may be low a lot of employers will take the easy option of withdrawing their job offer. As was said earlier, the more unique and desirable the OP is to the new firm, the greater the chance of the covenant being enforceable.

The moral here for the future is don't sign contracts in the hope that they will not be enforced or are not enforceable.

Undervalued

tea_lover wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be enforceable? It's in the contract with the OP has signed. Ok, it's not convenient but that doesn't mean it's not enforceable.

Because the law doesn't allow such clauses to be too wide or too restrictive. We have no idea if this one is or isn't.

It is a bit like putting up notices or terms and conditions trying to exclude certain liabilities. Regardless of whether they are "agreed" they cannot be enforced if the term itself is unlawful.

TBagpuss

whether it is enforceable depends on how reasonable it is.

So if the covenant says you can't work for a competitor in the same industry, for 6 months, and within 10 miles of your current employer's office, might well be reasonable and enforceable. One saying that you couldn't work for any competitor for 6 months, or that you could not work for a local competitor for 5 years, most likely would not be.
Another issue is what type of work you do and what the reason for the restiction is. If there is a reasonable concern that you might 'poach' clients, or that they might follow you to the new employer, or that you may have trade secrets or commercially sensitive information about pricing etc , then there is a legitimate business reason for a restriction. If you don't have any of those kinds of information or 'pull' and the reason for the covenant is primarily to stop people leaving, it is harder to enforce.

Malthusian

tea_lover wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be enforceable?

Look up restraint of trade.