Post-termination clauses enforceable?

[LondonManc]

My agency is the little guy, I'm guessing they aren't up for this fight, especially if, as I think, I'm their only placement here.

Thanks for all the replies, it sounds like there's little to worry about.

If your agency is the little guy, then make sure you get paid promptly all the way through to the end of the contract. If they are doing no further business with clientco, you'll be potentially forgotten about or your last two weeks used as their compensation. Be prepared to wait for your cash but not for long.

[northernladuk]

Lance - very true but that's only if it goes legal and there is no chance that's going to happen

CoolCat - Weird that. I would have thought fighting the clause would have been better as its unlikely to stand up in the OPs case and starting a new company opens a new can of worms where they can pierce the veil. I don't think opening a new company properly addresses the legal situation but instead is a get away with it tactic if that makes sense.

[CoolCat]

Seen this happen before, and in the example I know about the contracts were checked by a lawyer and they only stopped the limited company going back to the client without using the same agent. the individuals were clear, so it was a simple case of setting up new limited company and away you go.

[Lance]

Not really an angle. It's the legal situation so a slam dunk for you.

I know of one other result that legal action can result in. It's possible for a judge to agree to a cease and desist notice meaning that the contractor simply CANNOT work for the client for a period of time.

It's not common, but is the only recourse if the injured party cannot prove any financial loss.
The worst case scenario then is that the OP has to stop working but it'as highly unlikely and a judge would likely consider it a petty action being taken.

[riffpie]

Don't forget that rate uplift negotiation as well. If you were the only.one they had I imagine they will have quite a high margin on you. If they are moving to a single supplier they should be taking less due to scale of quantity. Could work out nice for you.

I know exactly what the margin is, and it's pretty high. I've already hinted at a rate rise to the new guys but they didn't bite. This was all when they assumed this would go smoothly of course. Now that my hiring manager is panicking at the thought of losing me early, they'll be under a bit of pressure to retain me. Hopefully that's my next holiday paid for then

[northernladuk]

Don't forget that rate uplift negotiation as well. If you were the only.one they had I imagine they will have quite a high margin on you. If they are moving to a single supplier they should be taking less due to scale of quantity. Could work out nice for you.

[riffpie]

Then it depends on the contract between the agency and the client and the size of each party.

If the agency is small and the client large, or of equal size the agency will be told to feck off.

If other way round the client will drop you out of fear.

My agency is the little guy, I'm guessing they aren't up for this fight, especially if, as I think, I'm their only placement here.

Thanks for all the replies, it sounds like there's little to worry about.

[northernladuk]

Ah that's an interesting angle, yes. Thanks.

Not really an angle. It's the legal situation so a slam dunk for you. The exiting agent may still argue with the client wanting to buy you out but that's not your problem and they may get shirty with you but ignore it. They don't have a leg to stand on and from what you say it would be bloody stupid to try it on out-of spite.

[SueEllen]

As far as I can tell, it's literally just that they want all contracting done through one agency now. I suspect I may even be the ONLY contractor here through my agency, but I don't really know.

Then it depends on the contract between the agency and the client and the size of each party.

If the agency is small and the client large, or of equal size the agency will be told to feck off.

If other way round the client will drop you out of fear.

[riffpie]

You'll be fine - your existing agent is no longer in a position to offer you that piece of work. The clause is about demonstrable loss; if they cannot demonstrate that they could have placed you (which they can't if new agent is the only one on the PSL), then you've nothing to worry about. Best to confirm with client directly though, with particular mention to the handcuff clause.

Ah that's an interesting angle, yes. Thanks.

[riffpie]

What grounds are the client getting rid of your agency?

In theory the agent can try and sue but if the reason the agency has been dropped due to some contract breach they won't bother.

As far as I can tell, it's literally just that they want all contracting done through one agency now. I suspect I may even be the ONLY contractor here through my agency, but I don't really know.

[LondonManc]

You'll be fine - your existing agent is no longer in a position to offer you that piece of work. The clause is about demonstrable loss; if they cannot demonstrate that they could have placed you (which they can't if new agent is the only one on the PSL), then you've nothing to worry about. Best to confirm with client directly though, with particular mention to the handcuff clause.

[SueEllen]

What grounds are the client getting rid of your agency?

In theory the agent can try and sue but if the reason the agency has been dropped due to some contract breach they won't bother.

[riffpie]

So clientco has decided it wants all contractors to come through one agency, and this agency have failed to persuade my agent to let them "take over their contracts". So I've been told I'm terminated at the end of the month. I'm expecting said new agency to approach me shortly with a shiny new contract, but of course my existing contract states that I can't work for this client again for the next six months after termination. How enforceable is that in reality? I expect existing agency will, quite rightly, be keeping an eye on what happens next.