Lock in clause

Re: Lock in clause

Julian Earl — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:44:12 GMT

We were advised several years ago that reasonable terms are enforceable against partners but unlikely to be upheld at all in this day and age in the case of assistants.

Re: Lock in clause

Rob Loxley — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:27:38 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]These are common and probably unenforcable[/quote]

Post-termination restrictive covenants can and have been legally enforced in court, but they need to go no further than what is reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests (and the onus is on the employer to show this). I'm sure we've had a thread on this subject before...

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]If any part of a clause is considered unreasonable,then the clause is thrown out in it's entirety[/quote]

Hmm, you might want to google the 'blue pencil test', and the case of Nordenfelt v Maxim, Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd.

Re: Lock in clause

Peter Ding — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:03:27 GMT

IMHO all encompassing blanket distances and periods are likely to be found to be unreasonable.

If you leave after one year logically the likelihood of clients following you is far less than if you had been there ten years, any clauses would need to reflect period of time in the practice, whether you had sole charge etc etc.

What is probably more important is to act ethically during your period of notice and for the next couple of years. You shouldn't tell your current employers clients where you are moving to, or allow others to. Decline to take on your old clients for two years and everyone will be happy. In my experience they take a couple of years to find you but no-one can then complain.

Re: Lock in clause

Alan Tevendale — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:13:12 GMT

I would agree that a 2 year lock in is completely unreasonable. I've seen this happen a few times and can't remember many cases that have gone in favour of the previous practice.

The way I look at it if an assistant is good enough then they are worth keeping. If they're not good enough then they shouldn't be much competition.

Re: Lock in clause

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 10:26:28 GMT

If any part of a clause is considered unreasonable,then the clause is thrown out in it's entirety

There was a famous case even before I was a student, when a mixed practice in Weston-super mare put a clause in the assistant's contract banning working within a 20 mile radius. The assistant left,and set up his own practice down the road. It went to court, and the judge ruled that since a 20 mile radius included Barry in Glamorganshire (as the seagull flies ) the clause was unreasonable,so the assistants practice could remain

I would say that if the clause says 2 years it is legally unenforceable

I'mnot too sure about the morality of a veterinary surgeon reneging on a promise to another veterinary surgeon

Wynne

Re: Lock in clause

Thomas Johnson — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:25:53 GMT

I can remember reading an article about this in the Veterinary Business Journal last year, I think it said they were enforceable if considered 'reasonable' with a suggested time limit of 6 months. We don't keep back copies so I can't check I'm afraid.

Re: Lock in clause

J G Wray — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 07:32:09 GMT

Dear Mr Forster,

These are common and probably unenforcable, or not worth the time and money to enforce. Speak to BVA legal helpline/solicitor

Don't believe for a second that clients love you so much they will be prepared to go an extra 20 mins to your new practice - A point worth making to your current employers should you leave. If you work nearby be very careful about any gossip you carry from your previous practice - that travels because the profession is so small.

Well done for not posting under "Anon".

JGW