couple of questions...

Very difficult to provide advise on the above without seeing the contract. Do you mean on the first one that any business in the same type of service as the one she is in now and does it have a geographical exclusion ie 15 miles etc? The length of this clause can cause problems for those enforcing it which they would do via a court for breach of contract, once I see the clause I can let you know the legal enforceability.

As for the second one, it depends on whether commission is treated as salary in the contract or by custom and so again more information is needed.

Ideally your other half needs to take their own legal advice with the lawyer having the contract in front of them before advice is given, the above is generic which is not what they need.

Happy to advise further, if you email the contract we can quote for the report.

All lawyers can only give advice direct to the party concerned and upon direct facts from the same, along with sight of any documentation, such as, the contract of employment. The enforceability of the restraint of trade clause depends on the construction of the clause, nature of the employers' business, the interest the employer intends to protect, the employees' job, reasonableness etc. Some are enforceable, some not

robbie williams said:

Within a contract my other half has, and also one which I have had in the past is about working for another company for 12 months and not soliciting buisness for 12 months after termination of employment.... how can this be enforced?

Click to expand...

I defer to the lawyers regarding the strict legal matters. I can, however, tell you how I've seen this work in practice.

1) This clause is put in the contract to protect against an employee leaving, taking with them detailed knowledge of customers, and using that knowledge to steal customers away to another company. If the employee does this within the specified period, expect the company to go after its former employee. The clause will be enforced.

2) Strictly, this clause prevents the employee from working in the same industry for a year, but I've not seen the clause enforced if the former employee goes after other potential customers (although they could if they feel company confidential information is used against them). The issue is usually about stealing existing customers, not competing against the former employer for new business.

3) What is the company's track record? Do they pursue former employees aggressively to protect their turf? Do they respond only when there's good reason to do so? Do they never go after former employees? Companies are usually consistent in their approach, so track record is important.

Companies have to be reasonable in the enforcement of this clause (in the US, for sure, the former employee has rights). After all, employees have to earn a living, and it's unreasonable for a company to prevent a former employee from using her skills/knowledge elsewhere - as long as the employee does not try to steal customers from that company.

As an employer yourself, consider how you would react if a former employee used your company secrets to steal your customers. This is what the clause is all about.

PS - These days, it's more common to see a restriction of 6 months; 12 months borders on the unreasonable. Still, if your other half's contract states 12 months, then 12 months it is.

There is case law to suggest that 12 month restrictive convenants are unfair I therefore recommend to my clients when I draw up employment contracts containing the clause that 3-6 months is better to prevent either customers being poached or the setting up of business within a specific area in close proximity to the company.

With the commission payments during the ordinary maternity leave period (39 weeks) all pay and benefits continue as normal. However during the additional maternity leave period (13 weeks) they may not and it depends on the company's policy. This should be clearly stated in writing - either in a handbook or an employment contract so employees clearly know where they stand.

It really depends on the nature of the employers' business and employees' seniority and work of the employee. In Thomas v. Farr plc it was held that a 12-month non-competition covenant was fair.

On the facts given, it is not possible at all to say whether the convenant is fair.

Construction of the clause is one thing, construction of the entire contract is another. The entire contract needs to be seen.