Reply to: legal action advice

[northernladuk]

You could try this guy. Roger Sinclair writes a lot of articles about contract and keeps a log of contract breakers. Could be right up his street.

http://www.egos.co.uk

[northernladuk]

The 3 posters who answered you at the beginning of the thread gave you good advice so I strongly suggest you follow it and go see a contractor savvy solicitor.

This is because without seeing the actual wording of the contract no one on here can say whether the agent has a cause to complain, and even if we could we don't have the status to get the agent to cease their threats.

Totally this. Nothing else meaningful we can help with, particularly with new facts being drip fed to us.

We would love to know the outcome though. We give tons of advice and very rarely get to know what happened and this is a very interesting one.

[SueEllen]

The contract was made like this:

Agent LTD -> supplier (my LTD) and representative of the LTD (i.e. me)

The 3 posters who answered you at the beginning of the thread gave you good advice so I strongly suggest you follow it and go see a contractor savvy solicitor.

This is because without seeing the actual wording of the contract no one on here can say whether the agent has a cause to complain, and even if we could we don't have the status to get the agent to cease their threats.

[momochord]

On that basis all he can do is threaten to sue a LTD that no longer exists.
I take it that you had no personal contracts with the agency, and it was just between the LTD and the agency?

The contract was made like this:

Agent LTD -> supplier (my LTD) and representative of the LTD (i.e. me)

[Lance]

Hi, this agent wasn't direct to the client but and indirect sub-contractor to another agent who was direct. Was open with the agent that the client will not engage any work with non-preferred agencies any longer. The agent couldn't find me any work, my LTD company with whom my contract was made against was dissolved 12mths ago and I was serving that same agent for over decade before this situation occurred.

On that basis all he can do is threaten to sue a LTD that no longer exists.
I take it that you had no personal contracts with the agency, and it was just between the LTD and the agency?

[momochord]

It does but it's also loss of income from the agent so don't be so precious. You did have an alternative, you adhere to your contractual positions, negotiate and if that doesn't work you go find more work like contractors do.

I think this is going to be pretty complicated so need to go straight for legal advice. There are very few details here but as NAT said 12 months isn't normally fair so could be invalid but working straight for the client after the agent couldn't be any more black and white so it would initially look like the agent has a very strong case. Whatever the wording the courts will favour the party that can prove loss.

There will be an upper contract between him and the client which we can't see which should have some form of poaching/handcuff and then there is the one between you and the agent. You should have read this and understood it rather than just blundering in. It's there for a very good reason as you are finding out. Yes it might appear to be a denial of work but it's a contractual agreement which you either have to negotiate to a mutual ending or ignore and face the consequences.

Get a lawyer but take this as a lesson to understand what you do better. You are a CONTRACTor and the contract isn't there just to look pretty.

I'd put money on bluff and bluster from the agent and a few stiff letters from your solicitor will make it go away.

Hi, this agent wasn't direct to the client but and indirect sub-contractor to another agent who was direct. Was open with the agent that the client will not engage any work with non-preferred agencies any longer. The agent couldn't find me any work, my LTD company with whom my contract was made against was dissolved 12mths ago and I was serving that same agent for over decade before this situation occurred.

[northernladuk]

Its not a very strong point really is it. The agent asks about the position and the client tells them. The client isnt going to start lying to protect the contractor. If its a reasonable sized client they will have regular meetings to discuss positions and renewals.

I also have a sneaking suspicion the OP might have told them as well. If he knew nothing about handcuffs he probably didnt think there would be anything wrong telling the agent.

[Lance]

Who actually told the agent you were now contracting directly?

^^This is an excellent point.
Also... can the agent prove you've gone direct? Without proof they have no leg to stand on. Of course if you've spoken to them not understanding the ramifications then you may have provided them the proof.

[chopper]

Who actually told the agent you were now contracting directly?

Read these

Contractors' Questions: What if I breach a restrictive clause? :: Contractor UK

[MrMarkyMark]

It does but it's also loss of income from the agent so don't be so precious. You did have an alternative, you adhere to your contractual positions, negotiate and if that doesn't work you go find more work like contractors do.

I think this is going to be pretty complicated so need to go straight for legal advice. There are very few details here but as NAT said 12 months isn't normally fair so could be invalid but working straight for the client after the agent couldn't be any more black and white so it would initially look like the agent has a very strong case. Whatever the wording the courts will favour the party that can prove loss.

There will be an upper contract between him and the client which we can't see which should have some form of poaching/handcuff and then there is the one between you and the agent. You should have read this and understood it rather than just blundering in. It's there for a very good reason as you are finding out. Yes it might appear to be a denial of work but it's a contractual agreement which you either have to negotiate to a mutual ending or ignore and face the consequences.

Get a lawyer but take this as a lesson to understand what you do better. You are a CONTRACTor and the contract isn't there just to look pretty.

I'd put money on bluff and bluster from the agent and a few stiff letters from your solicitor will make it go away.

Absolutely this.

[Lance]

Last time I checked it was £1500 as a fixed fee for legal advice and all the letters required to make this go away. It probably will go away but you need an expert to make sure it's done properly. Say no more to the agent and get lawyered up.

[BrilloPad]

Have you spoken to the client on this? They may well have a similar letter. You could pool resources to fight this?

[VectraMan]

Hi,

I have an old recruitment agent who is potentially seeking legal action against my company because his client has taken me on directly as they didn't want to pay extra commission to the agent. He has a 12mth clause in his contract stating that the consultant cannot work for the end client during this period. The agent wasn't able to find me replacement work so I carried on working as I had no alternative. It almost feels a denial of work for me.

Who has the clause? That makes it sound like there's no clause in your contract with the agent.

[northernladuk]

The agent wasn't able to find me replacement work so I carried on working as I had no alternative. It almost feels a denial of work for me.
.

It does but it's also loss of income from the agent so don't be so precious. You did have an alternative, you adhere to your contractual positions, negotiate and if that doesn't work you go find more work like contractors do.

I think this is going to be pretty complicated so need to go straight for legal advice. There are very few details here but as NAT said 12 months isn't normally fair so could be invalid but working straight for the client after the agent couldn't be any more black and white so it would initially look like the agent has a very strong case. Whatever the wording the courts will favour the party that can prove loss.

There will be an upper contract between him and the client which we can't see which should have some form of poaching/handcuff and then there is the one between you and the agent. You should have read this and understood it rather than just blundering in. It's there for a very good reason as you are finding out. Yes it might appear to be a denial of work but it's a contractual agreement which you either have to negotiate to a mutual ending or ignore and face the consequences.

Get a lawyer but take this as a lesson to understand what you do better. You are a CONTRACTor and the contract isn't there just to look pretty.

I'd put money on bluff and bluster from the agent and a few stiff letters from your solicitor will make it go away.

[cojak]

A contract savvy solicitor ought to do the job as well.

Lawyers can come later - you just need to call the agent's bluff.