Restricted Clause and Liquidated Damages

[SueEllen]

But that would involve spending money and maybe getting an answer they didn't like!

On a serious note I think it is unlikely a recruitment company would go after the OP's Ltd Company as with the greatest respect he is likely a 'man of straw'. Far more likely to enforce restrictive covenants against the client. That said if they haven't got these with the clients he will be next in line.

Also as others have mentioned, The OP shouldn't bank on that they won't find out.

Why not cut a deal with them?

Why would I cut a deal with someone when a trip to a solicitor's while it costs more in the short run would be cheaper in the long run?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Andy Hallett]

You go see a solicitor.

But that would involve spending money and maybe getting an answer they didn't like!

On a serious note I think it is unlikely a recruitment company would go after the OP's Ltd Company as with the greatest respect he is likely a 'man of straw'. Far more likely to enforce restrictive covenants against the client. That said if they haven't got these with the clients he will be next in line.

Also as others have mentioned, The OP shouldn't bank on that they won't find out.

Why not cut a deal with them?

[Ticktock]

So any ideas on how to get legal help?

You go see a solicitor.

[TombRaider]

It is the legal opinion that I need help with

Not all clients put up with that tulip.

Personally I would get a legal opinion then if the agency finds out you are on site and the client doesn't tell them to do one, I would send the agent a nasty legal letter threatening them for the cost of the contract.

The contract was with an agency but the restriction clause was in a confidential agreement that I signed with the consultancy that provides resources and services to the end client.

So if the end client decide to disregard the restriction clause and go ahead with taking me on board through a different agency, I want some help getting hold of legal help that can give advice and if necessary a nasty legal letter as SueEllen say.

So any ideas on how to get legal help?

[SueEllen]

I wouldn't bank on the agent not finding out. It is a very small world out there and the fall out could be rather serious in the worst case.

It isn't really the legalities or the length of the restriction you need to worry about. It is the agents throwing their teddies out of their cot and causing trouble with the client. It is more likely the client will just drop you to avoid the hassle.

Not all clients put up with that tulip.

Personally I would get a legal opinion then if the agency finds out you are on site and the client doesn't tell them to do one, I would send the agent a nasty legal letter threatening them for the cost of the contract.

[TheFaQQer]

In this market Agents that get shirty with clients don't last long anyway... Conversation tends to go along the lines of

Agent :That git is under a restriction and should not be on site
Client :And thats my problem because???
Agent :We'll sue everyone !!!!
Client :No problems just remove all your other sub contractors from site...
Agent :Erm (tulip) maybe not...
Client :Thought not... Now jog on and buy some hair gel or whatever you do for fun... Theres a good little essex boy

The idea that the client would bin all their contractors so that they can keep this one is laughable.

Agent: That git is under a restriction and should not be on site
Client: And that's my problem because???
Agent: Because it violates the contract that we have between your company and ours, which has (as you remember) a clause preventing you soliciting contractors previously provided through our company without paying a penalty clause. It's nothing to do with our contract with him, it's to do with our contract with you.
Client: Remind me again what the penalty is?
Agent: £x000
Client: Oh tulip - it's not worth it
Agent: Thought not. He could always come through us, though, and we'll accept a lower commission?

[bobspud]

I wouldn't bank on the agent not finding out. It is a very small world out there and the fall out could be rather serious in the worst case.

It isn't really the legalities or the length of the restriction you need to worry about. It is the agents throwing their teddies out of their cot and causing trouble with the client. It is more likely the client will just drop you to avoid the hassle.

In this market Agents that get shirty with clients don't last long anyway... Conversation tends to go along the lines of

Agent :That git is under a restriction and should not be on site
Client :And thats my problem because???
Agent :We'll sue everyone !!!!
Client :No problems just remove all your other sub contractors from site...
Agent :Erm (tulip) maybe not...
Client :Thought not... Now jog on and buy some hair gel or whatever you do for fun... Theres a good little essex boy

[moggy]

I wouldn't bank on the agent not finding out. It is a very small world out there and the fall out could be rather serious in the worst case.

It isn't really the legalities or the length of the restriction you need to worry about. It is the agents throwing their teddies out of their cot and causing trouble with the client. It is more likely the client will just drop you to avoid the hassle.

This.. its their business to know these kinds of things

[northernladuk]

I wouldn't bank on the agent not finding out. It is a very small world out there and the fall out could be rather serious in the worst case.

It isn't really the legalities or the length of the restriction you need to worry about. It is the agents throwing their teddies out of their cot and causing trouble with the client. It is more likely the client will just drop you to avoid the hassle.

[TombRaider]

Anyone recommend lawyer?

I came across one who operated online but have lost the details?

May need advice on this restriction clause issue from earlier in the year.

Thanks for any help.

[malvolio]

It's worth taking legal advice just to be sure, but I recall reading on a few occasions that it's unlikely a 12 month restriction would be upheld because it's an unfair restraint of trade - 3 months you can understand, but 12 is too long to argue being necessary for protection of their business.

With the big caveat that it depends on what you do for them and what you know that might be commercially valuable to a competitor. Unlikely a jobbing contractor would warrant it, of course, but it is possible.

[Clare@InTouch]

It's worth taking legal advice just to be sure, but I recall reading on a few occasions that it's unlikely a 12 month restriction would be upheld because it's an unfair restraint of trade - 3 months you can understand, but 12 is too long to argue being necessary for protection of their business.

[TombRaider]

I opted out and signed a contract which had a restricted clause of 12 months. I have now been offered another contract with the same client 6 months later. Anyone had experience of an agency invoking a restriction clause and claiming damages? It is unlikely said agency will find out so I am probably worrying about nothing