Restriction Clause help needed

[BlasterBates]

I think in this instance they have a good case. You have a handcuff clause, now it would be difficult to enforce if your agency was excluded from competing, but they're not, the client simply opened up the contracts. They will have got wind of this probably from the client.

My advice would be to switch back. Sure they're annoying but they are probably within their rights. Handcuff clauses are enforcable, and in this case I think it is.

They sound serious to me, not worth the hassle if they're offering you the same rate. The others are right about non-payment they can't do that.

However I would really try to move this towards an amicable solution.

I normally advise ignoring a handcuff clause if the agency doesn't offer you a renewal, this is different. At the very least consult a lawyer.

[themindseye]

I think in this instance they have a good case. You have a handcuff clause, now it would be difficult to enforce if your agency was excluded from competing, but they're not, the client simply opened up the contracts. They will have got wind of this probably from the client.

My advice would be to switch back. Sure they're annoying but they are probably within their rights. Handcuff clauses are enforcable, and in this case I think it is.

They sound serious to me, not worth the hassle if they're offering you the same rate. The others are right about non-payment they can't do that.

However I would really try to move this towards an amicable solution.

I normally advise ignoring a handcuff clause if the agency doesn't offer you a renewal, this is different. At the very least consult a lawyer.

That's the thing they were excluded from competing as they are not a contractor the company directly deals with and only companies they are directly dealing with were allowed to compete.

[BlasterBates]

That's the thing they were excluded from competing as they are not a contractor the company directly deals with and only companies they are directly dealing with were allowed to compete.

OK but the point is are they offering you renewal, a contract at the same rate as you were on before even if it is indirect.

If that is the case they are still protecting a legitimate interest in enforcing the restriction clause, and therefore have a good case.

You have to give them a chance to get the contract.

[themindseye]

[QUOTE=BlasterBates;2606131]OK but the point is are they offering you renewal, a contract at the same rate as you were on before even if it is indirect.

No the contract was a new contract...The job role went out for anyone in the planet to apply for, it was made public in every jobsite out there.
The new company who represented me for the job offered me more money and better terms and conditions, bonus etc.

If the company was not allowed to even bid for the positions then how can they even try and clause me?
It must be remembered that I served my notice to quit at the end of the contract 31st Dec...This was 3 days before I was due to be paid for the time worked 2 months previous. Within my terms is a 30 day payment condition. 3 days after the 30 days was up I received an email saying they were withholding payment due to alleged breach..This is alleged breach of a contract that hasn't even started yet and most likely won't be started.
According to UK law if a contracting company withholds payment for a contract that has not been defaulted on then they are in breach of contract and I can terminate the contract under those laws.

[doconline]

[QUOTE=themindseye;2606146]

OK but the point is are they offering you renewal, a contract at the same rate as you were on before even if it is indirect.

No the contract was a new contract...The job role went out for anyone in the planet to apply for, it was made public in every jobsite out there.
The new company who represented me for the job offered me more money and better terms and conditions, bonus etc.

If the company was not allowed to even bid for the positions then how can they even try and clause me?
It must be remembered that I served my notice to quit at the end of the contract 31st Dec...This was 3 days before I was due to be paid for the time worked 2 months previous. Within my terms is a 30 day payment condition. 3 days after the 30 days was up I received an email saying they were withholding payment due to alleged breach..This is alleged breach of a contract that hasn't even started yet and most likely won't be started.
According to UK law if a contracting company withholds payment for a contract that has not been defaulted on then they are in breach of contract and I can terminate the contract under those laws.

OK, are you a contractor or a permie? You've said you are going to be a director in a new company from the new year, and have been offered more money and better terms and conditions, bonus etc. This does sound like a permanent role especially the bonus. Are you currently contracting through your own ltd company and how will this change in the new year?

[themindseye]

[QUOTE=doconline;2606168]

OK, are you a contractor or a permie? You've said you are going to be a director in a new company from the new year, and have been offered more money and better terms and conditions, bonus etc. This does sound like a permanent role especially the bonus. Are you currently contracting through your own ltd company and how will this change in the new year?

No its not a permie job it's another contract. Terms and conditions are better as in more money, free flights and training payments from the hiring agent.
I am in my own LTD company which is ceasing to trade at the end of the year. I will be the employee of a new LTD company not the director

[pr1]

No its not a permie job it's another contract. Terms and conditions are better as in more money, free flights and training payments from the hiring agent.
I am in my own LTD company which is ceasing to trade at the end of the year. I will be the employee of a new LTD company not the director

[themindseye]

Plus another thing, the restriction they say actually if applied since its so broad means I can't take a post out of at least 1000 other jobs so in a nutshell stopping any means of me feeding myself. A bit over the top a restriction.

[doconline]

Plus another thing, the restriction they say actually if applied since its so broad means I can't take a post out of at least 1000 other jobs so in a nutshell stopping any means of me feeding myself. A bit over the top a restriction.

Sorry fella, I'm not sure what else to say on this. You sound like you've got a really complicated set up, swapping from your own limited company to another company, which you won't be a director of (which most agencies don't like, unless you are going through an umbrella). It's either really complicated or you haven't given us all the information.

The restriction clauses are usually relatively simple, in that you can't go to the end client directly or indirectly through a 3rd party for a period of x months. Not sure where you are getting this 1000 other jobs, unless you mean with the same end client? Best thing is to get professional advice on this one and have a solicitor look at the paperwork and how enforceable the clause is do to your old agency not being able to bid for the work or whatever it is they did to put you in there in the first place, but they shouldn't withhold money from your current contract. These are 2 different issues.

[themindseye]

Sorry fella, I'm not sure what else to say on this. You sound like you've got a really complicated set up, swapping from your own limited company to another company, which you won't be a director of (which most agencies don't like, unless you are going through an umbrella). It's either really complicated or you haven't given us all the information.

The restriction clauses are usually relatively simple, in that you can't go to the end client directly or indirectly through a 3rd party for a period of x months. Not sure where you are getting this 1000 other jobs, unless you mean with the same end client? Best thing is to get professional advice on this one and have a solicitor look at the paperwork and how enforceable the clause is do to your old agency not being able to bid for the work or whatever it is they did to put you in there in the first place, but they shouldn't withhold money from your current contract. These are 2 different issues.

Simply put I had an illness and decided I would rather not run the business myself so have got the accountants to wind it up at the end of the year. The new agent I am contracting for is fine with me being the employee of the new Ltd company.
The restriction is the end client I am working for has over 1000 jobs in my field so by limiting my movement severely limits my options to earn. Do you stay with an agent who pays you a LOT LESS and threatens you any time you have an offer with someone else or even when offered a job with a completely different end client? This is their behaviour.

I was in the understanding that by the agent not paying me that would also render the contract nullified, from what I have been reading in law forums it seems to be the case., plus if a clause it too restrictive it cannot be enforced. No wonder people in Europe don't care about these clauses since they don't recognize enslavement.