Jobs Simply

Can a company director start legal proceeding personally for breach of contract?

I recently accepted voluntary redundancy from my job. I agreed to the redundancy on the condition that the non-compete clause would not enforced (to aid in my job search and avoid any conflict of interest). This was agreed to on the condition that I did not solicit or canvass their clients directly. I wasn't able to find a job so set up my own company (nothing posh and it hasn't even made a profit yet!) I was approached by on of my old clients and agreed to deal with them alongside my ex employer and other agencies. Without wanting to give too much information away, I basically worked for an estate agency who had lots of clients with multiple properties who were using multiple agencies. So, my ex employer has gone back on our verbal agreement and start legal proceedings against me personally for breach of the non-compete clause. However, my contract of employment was, obviously, between the company and I. He has started the proceedings in his own name (not the company name). Can he do this? If so, does anyone know why he would do this? He also only owns about small stake in the company with his wife being the majority shareholder. She is not named as a claimant at all. Any help would be great! I hope that all made sense ;) I have just realised that my username makes my profession pretty obvious!!

Public Comments

1. You accepted an approach from one of your old clients, and so you have little chance of winning because you have broken the condition about not dealing with your ex-employer's clients. My wife does TV commercials. Last year she did one for BoA. She is not permitted to do another commercial for a bank for two years after the BoA stopped airing. If an agent acting on behalf of a bank approaches her to do a commercial within that two year period, she has to refuse - or else get thrown out of her union . You don't have to ask your former client for business - it is enough you agreed to accept his business to attract legal proceedings.
2. This all hinges on whether the estate agency where you were an employee was a limited company, a partnership or had a sole proprietor. If it's a limited company (it would normally have Limited or plc in its name), only the company can sue. If it's a partnership, any of the partners can sue. If it has a sole proprietor, he can sue. If you're sure it is a limited company, write to the individual heading your letter "Without Prejudice". State that you are not aware of any contract existing or having existed between you; that you are keeping a note of your expenses and costs, and that if he persists you will make a counterclaim.
3. Non-compete (and similar) restrictive covenants are frowned on by the courts because they are a restraint of trade. The basic position is that everyone needs to earn a living, and competition between businesses is a good thing, so it is against public policy for businesses to attempt to restrict competition and prevent ex employees from competing with them. They will be allowed, but only if they are not drafted more widely than is necessary. So a restrictive coventant will not be permitted to cover a wider geographical area than the ex employer operates in, nor to cover a wider range of businesses that the employer / employee works in. And it is unlikely that a restrictive covenant will be permitted to last longer than about a year. Often such clauses are completely void, because they are far too wide and are written in such a way that there is no way they can be interpreted fairly. Even if not void, if there are two possible interpretations they will be interpreted against the party trying to rely on them - in this case the employer. This is relevant to you. If the clause prevented soliciting or canvassing clients then it only stopped you from approaching them. If they approached you then there is nothing to stop you from doing business with them. And too be honest, a blanket non-dealing clause is more likely to be found to be wider than necessary anyway. Also, while redundancy does not automatically render restrictive covenants void, it does call them into question. By making you redundant the employer is saying he does not need your services any more. So its a bit much for him to complain if you find business that he couldn't find when you were employed. Finally, as you say your contract was with the company (assuming it is actually a limited company) not the individual director. So the director has no personal interest, so he cannot sue you in his own name. He should be acting on behalf of the company and suing in the company name. My suggestion is to wait until you receive the claim form from the court. Then as part of your defence (maybe the only part) respond that you have / had no contract with the director personally, so there is no case to answer. Its fairly clear that this guy is trying to do this on the cheap and does not really know what he is doing. Don't fall into the same trap yourself. So ignore the advice in another answer to write a "without prejudice" letter. Communications are without prejudice when they are a genuine attempt to negotiate a settlement, and without prejudice means they cannot then be used in court if the negotiations don't succeed. You are not negotiating here - you WANT the fact of the faulty claim to be used in court IN YOUR FAVOUR. So the last thing you want to do is to make it without prejudice - even though simply writing that on a letter does not make it without prejudice if it isn't.