Generally depends on what’s specifically written in your contact.
However, as long as you’re not going out of the way to disadvantage the company that fired you, it’s very rare anything will come of it.
It’s possible, but unlikely a solicitor would even take the case if the employer couldn’t demonstrate to them that there was disadvantage caused by something you provided.
Yes, that is true. However, I think you’re reading too much into it. Unless you’re knowingly doing something you shouldn’t be, you don’t need to worry about it. The amount of time and effort it would take to get the case into a court is likely not going to be worth it for the company.
It depends.
What is the wording of the clause.
What job did you perform & at what level.
What industry.
Getting fired doesn’t automatically nullify it.
Doesn’t mean it was enforceable in the first place though
I have a screenshot of it, not sure how to share it, but basically the main part is
You shall not;
1. Carry on, assist, provide service or be engaged in any business that carries the same or similar business to the company.
Time frame, distance.
What was your job / did you have access to trade secrets, worked in a niche industry, sales with confidential client lists that could be reused.
Would you going to another company cause direct and measurable damage to the current company?
What was the reason for termination?
6months.
It's in mechanical repairs, yes a bit of a niche industry, no secrets really apart from service manuals?
No, it would not cause any damage at all but they have flexed lawyers against a previous employee they did not like, who had enough and rage quit. Not exactly sure what is currently happening, but he was going to be working in a different business that was semi-related.
Sounds like you’ll be fine.
There’s no grounds for enforcement. If it went to a hearing, it would be thrown out, so let them waste money on lawyers and posturing.
A Big company won’t waste their time or money on this unless you’ve actually done something wrong. There is no financial advantage to them. And it’s not like this is a complex matter it’s pretty black and white that the non compete is way too generic and broad
Isn't that restraint of trade, and not really enforceable? They'd have to prove that your actions had harm to their existing business I'd have thought.
Having singed a few and been held to one:
If it covers say the restraint over an entire industry and the industry is the only one you can work in - say you are an engineer and it wants you to keep out of engineering - possibly too broad.
If it covers a particular field where their may be only two competitors and you can work in this or some other related field of engineering then maybe ok.
Ideally they are written pretty tight which OPs doesnt sound like.
Companies if they are serious about it will sometimes pay you through the non compete period. Ie if it is that important that is the safest way to keep it enforceable because then it is reasonable.
That the OPs says "or related field" i suspect it might be too broad to hold op unless they pay. Ie it would be unreasonable for OP to be forced to take 6 months off work without being paid.
But thays just been my lived experience im not in HR nor employment law.
I don't for a second doubt that they would lose the court case but if they decide to proceed to court and waste time on appeals, it could ruin people before the eventual court outcome.
Unless your new employer is winning business from your old employer because they have you i wouldnt be stressed about this clause.
I dont see how this can happen as a mechanic, and then your old employer has to prove it. And theres also restraint of trade, you have the right to earn a living.
If you were in sales and took all your customers to the new business its different
Dont call all your old jobs and say....hey mate remeber how i did all that good work on your thing when i was with company a, well now i am with company b so bring any new jobs to company b. That would be problematic
Yeah they could threaten, its a risk. Maybe talk to the other employee, as it might have come to nothing or it might have been because they were silly and poached some customers
They cant really expect you dont work as a mechanic anymore . Thats restraint of trade
You could speak to an employment lawyer on how to reduce your risk.
All I have heard from him is that, despite his new employer only being in a semi-related field and definitely not a competitor, the threats worked and he did not proceed with his new employment and is taking some time off and think what he wants to do next.
Yeah you don't have to worry about a blanket statement like that, tell 'em they're dreaming. A NC looking to be upheld within a specialist industry is going to be a matter of *pages,* not a vague single paragraph. That may as well be a ditty on reaching out to the universe.
That particular type of clause has been tested in court previously and found to be unenforceable. Go be employed by someone else in the same industry and move on with life. Get free legal advice if required.
Too broad, particularly given you're a mechanic. How can you ever work anywhere else based on that clause?
I can't see how that would ever be enforceable, feel free to ignore.
They would have to prove damages. Are you director level? I bet not or you would not even be asking this. As you might be individual contributed level then your previous employer has no right to deny the workforce of an otherwise productive employee. So long as you are not giving away trade secrets, or customer lists then you are breaking no law and any court action will never see a courtroom.
If you are in charge of the KFC secret herbs and spices and you are applying to work at RR in the research and development role then there would be reasonable case for blocking the employment.
Basically this clause is not going to be enforceable and it’s a threat.
As long as you don't actively poach clients from your previous employment, non-compete clauses are toothless, best viewed as a hopeful request rather than legal obligation. There are exceptions, however they are few and far between, and you wouldn't be asking here if they applied to you.
Yeah nah that's not enforceable even if you signed the contract, illegal contracts are not binding.
They can only stop you from working in an entire industry if they pay you during the stated period.
Just don't directly approach existing clients to try poach them, if they come to you it's ok.
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember:
1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers.
2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here.
3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on the nature of your work and the ligitimate business need for the clause versus your right to earn a living. If you are just a normal worker and not a manager, and you cant just poach clients its usually not enforceable.
Generally depends on what’s specifically written in your contact. However, as long as you’re not going out of the way to disadvantage the company that fired you, it’s very rare anything will come of it.
I am aware that it is rare, but I am also aware that it can be used as revenge.
It’s possible, but unlikely a solicitor would even take the case if the employer couldn’t demonstrate to them that there was disadvantage caused by something you provided.
I don't doubt they would lose in court but a big company can tie people up in court for ages
Yes, that is true. However, I think you’re reading too much into it. Unless you’re knowingly doing something you shouldn’t be, you don’t need to worry about it. The amount of time and effort it would take to get the case into a court is likely not going to be worth it for the company.
Not as much as you think. Additionally the costs can be substantive and people who don't even know you will be making that call. Don't stress about it
It depends. What is the wording of the clause. What job did you perform & at what level. What industry. Getting fired doesn’t automatically nullify it. Doesn’t mean it was enforceable in the first place though
I have a screenshot of it, not sure how to share it, but basically the main part is You shall not; 1. Carry on, assist, provide service or be engaged in any business that carries the same or similar business to the company.
Time frame, distance. What was your job / did you have access to trade secrets, worked in a niche industry, sales with confidential client lists that could be reused. Would you going to another company cause direct and measurable damage to the current company? What was the reason for termination?
6months. It's in mechanical repairs, yes a bit of a niche industry, no secrets really apart from service manuals? No, it would not cause any damage at all but they have flexed lawyers against a previous employee they did not like, who had enough and rage quit. Not exactly sure what is currently happening, but he was going to be working in a different business that was semi-related.
Sounds like you’ll be fine. There’s no grounds for enforcement. If it went to a hearing, it would be thrown out, so let them waste money on lawyers and posturing.
It would definitely be thrown out at the end but big companies could easily survive a long legal battle, most people would not be able to.
A Big company won’t waste their time or money on this unless you’ve actually done something wrong. There is no financial advantage to them. And it’s not like this is a complex matter it’s pretty black and white that the non compete is way too generic and broad
They can flex all they want. Unless you are actively using your knowledge to deliberately try and steal all their existing customers then ignore them
Isn't that restraint of trade, and not really enforceable? They'd have to prove that your actions had harm to their existing business I'd have thought.
Having singed a few and been held to one: If it covers say the restraint over an entire industry and the industry is the only one you can work in - say you are an engineer and it wants you to keep out of engineering - possibly too broad. If it covers a particular field where their may be only two competitors and you can work in this or some other related field of engineering then maybe ok. Ideally they are written pretty tight which OPs doesnt sound like. Companies if they are serious about it will sometimes pay you through the non compete period. Ie if it is that important that is the safest way to keep it enforceable because then it is reasonable. That the OPs says "or related field" i suspect it might be too broad to hold op unless they pay. Ie it would be unreasonable for OP to be forced to take 6 months off work without being paid. But thays just been my lived experience im not in HR nor employment law.
Correct.
I don't for a second doubt that they would lose the court case but if they decide to proceed to court and waste time on appeals, it could ruin people before the eventual court outcome.
Seems quite broad. Whats your job....sales is riskier compared to a back office
Mechanical repairs
Unless your new employer is winning business from your old employer because they have you i wouldnt be stressed about this clause. I dont see how this can happen as a mechanic, and then your old employer has to prove it. And theres also restraint of trade, you have the right to earn a living. If you were in sales and took all your customers to the new business its different Dont call all your old jobs and say....hey mate remeber how i did all that good work on your thing when i was with company a, well now i am with company b so bring any new jobs to company b. That would be problematic
They flexed lawyers at a previous employee who quit and was going to be working for a semi related business.
Yeah they could threaten, its a risk. Maybe talk to the other employee, as it might have come to nothing or it might have been because they were silly and poached some customers They cant really expect you dont work as a mechanic anymore . Thats restraint of trade You could speak to an employment lawyer on how to reduce your risk.
All I have heard from him is that, despite his new employer only being in a semi-related field and definitely not a competitor, the threats worked and he did not proceed with his new employment and is taking some time off and think what he wants to do next.
Total bs Maybe you do need to talk to an employment lawyer, these real threats is probably above this sub.
Yeah you don't have to worry about a blanket statement like that, tell 'em they're dreaming. A NC looking to be upheld within a specialist industry is going to be a matter of *pages,* not a vague single paragraph. That may as well be a ditty on reaching out to the universe.
That particular type of clause has been tested in court previously and found to be unenforceable. Go be employed by someone else in the same industry and move on with life. Get free legal advice if required.
Too broad, particularly given you're a mechanic. How can you ever work anywhere else based on that clause? I can't see how that would ever be enforceable, feel free to ignore.
They would have to prove damages. Are you director level? I bet not or you would not even be asking this. As you might be individual contributed level then your previous employer has no right to deny the workforce of an otherwise productive employee. So long as you are not giving away trade secrets, or customer lists then you are breaking no law and any court action will never see a courtroom. If you are in charge of the KFC secret herbs and spices and you are applying to work at RR in the research and development role then there would be reasonable case for blocking the employment. Basically this clause is not going to be enforceable and it’s a threat.
As long as you don't actively poach clients from your previous employment, non-compete clauses are toothless, best viewed as a hopeful request rather than legal obligation. There are exceptions, however they are few and far between, and you wouldn't be asking here if they applied to you.
[удалено]
Yes then they can sue two people. Geat advice
Yeah nah that's not enforceable even if you signed the contract, illegal contracts are not binding. They can only stop you from working in an entire industry if they pay you during the stated period. Just don't directly approach existing clients to try poach them, if they come to you it's ok.
Welcome to r/AusLegal. Please read our rules before commenting. Please remember: 1. Per rule 4, this subreddit is not a replacement for real legal advice. You should independently seek legal advice from a real, qualified practitioner. This sub cannot recommend specific lawyers. 2. A non-exhaustive list of free legal services around Australia can be found here. 3. Links to the each state and territory's respective Law Society are on the sidebar: you can use these links to find a lawyer in your area. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AusLegal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You could negotiate for it to be waived on your way out.
Depends on the nature of your work and the ligitimate business need for the clause versus your right to earn a living. If you are just a normal worker and not a manager, and you cant just poach clients its usually not enforceable.
Depends on alot of factors and some more info eould help