Honouring a no-compete, without being a mug?

[vwdan]

Hi All,

My current contract is almost certainly ending over the next few days - it's purely commercial on their part (no work, good for IR35 at least). I've been direct with a consultancy/bodyshop working with their clients.

Chucked up a "Need some work" LinkedIn post the other day and one of their customers has contacted me telling me to get in touch if I'm after some work. Obviously there's no guarantee at this point, but it's a good potential avenue - especially as I already know them.

Unsurprisingly, I have a relatively standard no-compete and, being fair, this is exactly what they're trying to stop. Now, I don't have any particular moral issue with them acting as my agent, but I don't want to become a mug. So, I was wondering if anyone else has played this game?

[BolshieBastard]

Hi All,

My current contract is almost certainly ending over the next few days - it's purely commercial on their part (no work, good for IR35 at least). I've been direct with a consultancy/bodyshop working with their clients.

Chucked up a "Need some work" LinkedIn post the other day and one of their customers has contacted me telling me to get in touch if I'm after some work. Obviously there's no guarantee at this point, but it's a good potential avenue - especially as I already know them.

Unsurprisingly, I have a relatively standard no-compete and, being fair, this is exactly what they're trying to stop. Now, I don't have any particular moral issue with them acting as my agent, but I don't want to become a mug. So, I was wondering if anyone else has played this game?

If you'd had your contract reviewed by B&C, they would have negotiated this client customer's non competition clause out or at the very least severely curtailed it as they have with me in the past.

[vwdan]

If you'd had your contract reviewed by B&C, they would have negotiated this client customer's non competition clause out or at the very least severely curtailed it as they have with me in the past.

Really - and you know the client would do that, because.....? And curtailed it to what - this is exactly what no competes are for.

But thanks for your totally useless input, anyway.

[SueEllen]

H

Unsurprisingly, I have a relatively standard no-compete and, being fair, this is exactly what they're trying to stop. Now, I don't have any particular moral issue with them acting as my agent, but I don't want to become a mug. So, I was wondering if anyone else has played this game?

What do you mean by standard?

Some no-compete clauses are so wide that they can't be invoked others are written to specifically stop you working with clients you personally worked with at the client for a reasonable time period. The first can be ignored while the second can't unless the time period seems to long.

I suggest you get the clause looked at before deciding anything as it is possible it can't be enforced.

[mudskipper]

What's the wording of the clause?

[BlasterBates]

Having read up on this most judges would not accept a no compete clause beyond the end of the contract.

In other words once the contract expires so does the no-compete clause, regardless of any time limits it has in it.

[vwdan]

Cheers all - I've not abandoned the thread, but there's something I want to do tomorrow before I post the clause.

With hindsight, I did cock up.

[SueEllen]

Having read up on this most judges would not accept a no compete clause beyond the end of the contract.

In other words once the contract expires so does the no-compete clause, regardless of any time limits it has in it.

It really depends on the wording of the clause especially the time-scales and what you do.

I've actually personally met people whose no complete clauses were legally enforceable as it went to a court, other people who were threatened with them but one look at the clause by a solicitor/barrister revealed that they couldn't be enforced, and other people who simply ignored them with no consequences.

[BlasterBates]

It really depends on the wording of the clause especially the time-scales and what you do.

I've actually personally met people whose no complete clauses were legally enforceable as it went to a court, other people who were threatened with them but one look at the clause by a solicitor/barrister revealed that they couldn't be enforced, and other people who simply ignored them with no consequences.

when contract renewal time comes up, an agency says that you must accept a lower fee to do the same job for the same client, or that you should do two jobs for the same money, just say that you will go work directly for the client if the agency insists. When the recruitment consultant at the agency threatens you with the restrictive covenant, just cite this article and warn that the consultant is out of line.

In other words everything is judged on a case by case basis, but generally the law is on the side of the contractor. My rule of thumb would be when your contract is over and in particular where the agency is not offering work, you can do as you wish as it would otherwise be restraint of trade. Obviously you can take legal advice on this, but in the case of the agency not offering an extension I personally would ignore it.

If the agency were offering to extend on reasonable terms , under those circumstances I would remain with the agency.

In other words is the recruitment agent behaving like an "elephant".

[PerfectStorm]

Generally speaking restrictive covenents are used to stop people being poached while in job. As the motion for you to leave is being invoked by the company, this practical application of the covenant shouldn't apply.

If in doubt, simply ask client/agency to email you a written confirmation that your restrictive covenant doesn't apply.