Handcuff - is 12 months unacceptable by law?

[redhotchiliflea]

Hi all,

I've been reading a lot about the handcuff rule and have read a few posts that make it a bit unclear.

I have the below condition and now have the opportunity to work with the same end client after 8 months of leaving. Is 12 months enforceable? is this deemed "Anti-competitive" as i have been asked by a different Hirer to go back to the same end user (which would in turn be getting paid by either the hirer, or a new agency)

I opted out (now i have my regrets!)

3 The Supplier shall and shall procure that the Representative shall

3.1 not during the Contract Period or thereafter for a period of 12 months either directly or indirectly (whether under a contract of

services or contract for services or through any third party) provide any services to the Hirer or End User in any capacity except

by contract through the Agency unless the Supplier shall first have paid to the Agency a fee of 30% of the total remuneration

including the value of benefits attributed by HM Revenue & Customs agreed to be paid or provided by the Hirer or End User for

the relevant period of provision of such services (but not exceeding 12 months) plus VAT;

[northernladuk]

You've seen these threads?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ha...obile&ie=UTF-8

Your first problem is the hassle caused and being dropped before it goes legal to be honest.

The general consensus is 12 months isn't enforceable. Anything over 6 is questionable but it's a case of who blinks first if the situation occurs. I'm not aware it's gone legal to test over 6 months so jury is out.

[LondonManc]

Yes, 12 months is generally regarded as unacceptable.

Ridiculous clause in the contract, rendering it null and void.

There's no leeway on appeal for the agent to have it reduced to 6, so you can do what you like.

[northernladuk]

Ridiculous clause in the contract, rendering it null and void.

Erm... Id be very careful about the wording of that sentence. It could infer something that's not true.

[WTFH]

Handcuff - is 12 months unacceptable by law?

30%? I've just pulled out the wording of a contract I had through an agent where section 3.1 said 25%, but everything else was worded exactly the same.

Makes me wonder. Have you searched for said agent on here to see what others think of them?
Perhaps they have upped it to 30% to recover the money they lost when I went legal with them.

[SueEllen]

I'm not aware it's gone legal to test over 6 months so jury is out.

Over 6 months has been tested in the courts but most cases aren't in the higher courts and don't involve IT contractors. The cases you can find quoted tend to involve permanent employees particularly those in sales.

The cases I know personally involve other small businesses/freelancers and permanent employees including in IT.

[SueEllen]

Ridiculous clause in the contract, rendering it null and void.

You don't nullify an entire contract with one stupid clause. The rest of the contract is still valid.

In addition if the void parts can be crossed out of the clause, then it's still valid.

[LondonManc]

You don't nullify an entire contract with one stupid clause. The rest of the contract is still valid.

In addition if the void parts can be crossed out of the clause, then it's still valid.

I know you don't, I was talking about the clause being rendered null and void.

[northernladuk]

I know you don't, I was talking about the clause being rendered null and void.

But that's not what it read like.

[LondonManc]

But that's not what it read like.

Don't you start.