Originally posted by SueEllen
View Post
Even if Bauer and Cottrell have said your contract is IR35 compliant you won't know until you've been through an investigation and the judge bangs his hammer down and says it is.
Here are the legal arguments:
How contractors should handle restrictive covenants: part 2 - the law
Agencies sometimes will try to lock you in to specific contract terms when contracts come up for renewal, and then cite the restrictive covenant in the contract to prevent you from working direct with the client. This isn't enforceable in law.
In determining what a legitimate protectable interest is, the courts will apply the 'Elephant Test.' This is a truly lawyerly invention: try and explain what an elephant looks like; you will find that you can't. But you know what an elephant is, and you recognise one when you see it. This is how the courts will seek to determine if there is a legitimate protectable interest--i.e. does it sound like it is fair?
So if, 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.
So if, 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.
Leave a comment: