Reply to: Handcuff Rule - Anyone been taken to court?

[Paralytic]

If he says that the judge threw out the case then that implies it went all the way to trial - I want to know if the OP really means that or is confused

I do wonder if "judge threw it out" actually meant the other party withdrew from the process.

[LondonPM1]

No we don't, you do but it's up to the OP to say what he wants and given this is second hand information regarding a friend I suspect he knows little more than he's told us

If he says that the judge threw out the case then that implies it went all the way to trial - I want to know if the OP really means that or is confused

[Old Greg]

I'll be spilling all the beans on my case when I get a court hearing.


Unless I lose of course.

[eek]

We need a lot more details

1) Did you serve a defence

2) Did they serve a reply to defence

3) Was there a pre trial case management conference call

4) Was it county court

5) Were witness statements exchanged

6) Were skeleton arguments exchanged

No we don't, you do but it's up to the OP to say what he wants and given this is second hand information regarding a friend I suspect he knows little more than he's told us

[LondonPM1]

An update.

Court date was due next week.

Judge has thrown it out before getting there.

I don't have any more details than that, or the reasons behind it.

We need a lot more details

1) Did you serve a defence

2) Did they serve a reply to defence

3) Was there a pre trial case management conference call

4) Was it county court

5) Were witness statements exchanged

6) Were skeleton arguments exchanged

[Antman]

An update.

Court date was due next week.

Judge has thrown it out before getting there.

I don't have any more details than that, or the reasons behind it.

Thanks for getting back, it'd be interesting to know what happened.

[checkerman]

Thrown Out

An update.

Court date was due next week.

Judge has thrown it out before getting there.

I don't have any more details than that, or the reasons behind it.

[checkerman]

The amount they were asking for seemed somewhat high, plus he was given two different figures. The invoice he was sent is actually more than what he they are now claiming for - all be it only slightly lower.

I do know someone who was taken to court recently in a completely different line of work - they were a salesman and permanent member of staff and were moving to another company that sold similar products - a claim for money was made against him, but only a cease was granted, and he couldn't start for 6mnths at his new company.

To clarify it wasn't HMRC, but looks like a court/small claims court claim. The screenshot showed gov.uk website. not hmrc, my bad.

I'm glad it's not me in this position, but knowing the agency I would hate for them to win! I know a number of contractors that have switched from them to another agency when they shouldn't have done. Luckily I dodged them at the last minute and went with another more reputable agency before signing with them. At the time I didn't know what they were like but went with the agency that was paying almost 100pd more....It was only after I started and met some contractors doing the same role, getting paid far less, and having to wait over two months to get their money. But hey they signed the contract.....

Thanks everyone, its great to get some feedback, I will let you know what happens.

checkerman

[Lance]

But my actual question was "I'm interested in seeing if anyone else has had this or actually gone to court ?" and "failing that is shutting down the company not an option ?

It very rarely happens and only happens if either the agency is being a dickhead (judges call that vexatious and rarely rule in their favour) or they have a really good case (very rare). If they do have a case, then what is more likely to happen is that under the auspices of 'Without Prejudice' an arrangement is made whereby a smaller fee would be paid to the agency.

I'm just intrigued at how likely an agency will successfully win - and if they do what are the chances of them getting the money they are 'owed' ( I will report back here if it ever gets that far)

For instance they have sent a bill for a loss of earnings of 6mnths. Well his renewal is 3mnths, so if he leaves after 3, how valid is that claim ?

It's all about facts. The agent has to provde that the contractor has breached the clause, that the clause is fair and resonable, and that the losses suffered are correct.
If the contract was for 3 months then getting 6 months of losses awarded is for the birds. It's a starting position for a negotiation (see first point). Also when going to court the 'without prejudice' letters aren't evidence so the full starting amount is where the claim starts. Another reason why these rarely end up in court as the starting valuie is too high. Judges are not happy about cases that should never have been brough to court. They are a last resort not a starting position.

If a court rules in the favor of the agency - and he then decides to shut down the company - how can the money be retrieved from the individual ? I'm sure I saw a post exactly on this forum where an agency/someone was owed a lot of money, they ruled in their favor, the amount wasn't paid, went back to court, agreed payment terms were setup, nothing paid, company shutdown, and the advice on this forum was to just forget about ever getting your money.

Yep. **** all to get from a closed company. But the contractor could end with a cease and desist court order preventing them from doing further work for the client. Best to avoid it getting that far by seeking legal advice.


IANAL

[Paralytic]

If a court rules in the favor of the agency - and he then decides to shut down the company - how can the money be retrieved from the individual ? I'm sure I saw a post exactly on this forum where an agency/someone was owed a lot of money, they ruled in their favor, the amount wasn't paid, went back to court, agreed payment terms were setup, nothing paid, company shutdown, and the advice on this forum was to just forget about ever getting your money.

If the court ruled in the agency's favour, then the agency would be creditor to the company and I would have thought they could have challenged the liquidation of the company.

This is assuming the handcuff clause was in the company's name. I wouldn't put it past agency's getting contractors to sign on a personal basis.

Did you find out why he logged onto the HMRC website?

[checkerman]

Thanks for all your replies.

Your right, unfortunately I don't have all the details, and yes I already agreed he needs a lawyer.


But my actual question was "I'm interested in seeing if anyone else has had this or actually gone to court ?" and "failing that is shutting down the company not an option ?

I'm just intrigued at how likely an agency will successfully win - and if they do what are the chances of them getting the money they are 'owed' ( I will report back here if it ever gets that far)

For instance they have sent a bill for a loss of earnings of 6mnths. Well his renewal is 3mnths, so if he leaves after 3, how valid is that claim ?

If a court rules in the favor of the agency - and he then decides to shut down the company - how can the money be retrieved from the individual ? I'm sure I saw a post exactly on this forum where an agency/someone was owed a lot of money, they ruled in their favor, the amount wasn't paid, went back to court, agreed payment terms were setup, nothing paid, company shutdown, and the advice on this forum was to just forget about ever getting your money.

Thanks everybody for your replies - I will report back in the future to let you know how things went.

[boxingbantz]

What do HMRC have to do with it?

Exactly what I thought.

[DeludedKitten]

Normally a handcuff clause is used against an individual. Despite the clause being in a LTD. company contract.

Best advise is to stick to your contract and not try to rip the agencies off. They have legal teams for this sort of thing.
If you want to go direct let the client force it with the agency. Or leave and return after 6 months.

Or don't opt out of the agency regulations and go back sooner.

Don't forget that there is likely to be an enforceable penalty clause in the contract between client and the agency as well. Not your concern, technically, but it would be something the client should think about.

[northernladuk]

I was over simplifying it a bit.
In reality, an agent would look to sue (as a last resort) for losses.
A half-way house would be where a judge issues a cease and desist order against an individual. That won't get the agent any money but it does draw a stop to an individual working for that client, by any route. Whether that involves 'piercing the veil' or not I'm not sure.

IANAL

Ah no. They wouldn't need to do that. If it's the same company the individual would be covered as an entity of the LTD. They would only need to pierce if the person started a new company and hid behind that. They can go through the LTD and target the person if he did that. Uncommon but it's there.

[Lance]

I don't think what Lance says is strictly true. The handcuff is against anyone in the Ltd but there is only the director so it looks like its targeting the individual. If there were more people it would cover them as well. If that makes sense.

If you shut the company, open an new one and rock up they could attempt to 'pierce the corporate veil' which would allow them to target the person regardless of the company set up. It is a very thinly veiled attempt to off load the companies obligations and allow the same person to work so they can look beyond the company to combat this.

I was over simplifying it a bit.
In reality, an agent would look to sue (as a last resort) for losses.
A half-way house would be where a judge issues a cease and desist order against an individual. That won't get the agent any money but it does draw a stop to an individual working for that client, by any route. Whether that involves 'piercing the veil' or not I'm not sure.

IANAL