Enforce Employment contract on person who has left the country

castie

Dont know why but this jumped into my head.

Say for example you were bound by a contract in Ireland for the sake of arguement lets say "Cannot work for a competitor for 2 years"
You left the country to somewhere outside the EU and began working for a competitor.

For the former company to take a case against you and get any sort of claim would you need to be found or notified first?

Find it hard to believe that a case could procede without you having a chance to defend yourself but thinking there might be something there. (I realise cases happen in the defendents absense all the time but this strikes me as a bit different to just not showing up)

Victor

A court is unlikely to accept a two year restriction unless the former employer pays for 'gardening leave'. A one year restriction would only be acceptable if there is very specific knowledge, e.g if you were Airbus head of Finance moving to Boeing.

If you are moving out of the country, it is going to be very difficult for them to argue the restriction is reasonable. Separately, it will be very difficult for them to enforce it.

FreudianSlippers

There has to be both temporal and geographical reasonableness in non-compete clauses. As Victor points out, this may be interpreted differently depending on the level and type of the job.

As a separate answer to the other part of your question, if they were to issue proceedings against you they would have to find you and serve you according with service outside the jurisdiction (different rules depending on where you are).
In most cases if they cannot serve you at your current location they can apply for substituted service.

castie

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There has to be both temporal and geographical reasonableness in non-compete clauses. As Victor points out, this may be interpreted differently depending on the level and type of the job.

As a separate answer to the other part of your question, if they were to issue proceedings against you they would have to find you and serve you according with service outside the jurisdiction (different rules depending on where you are).
In most cases if they cannot serve you at your current location they can apply for substituted service.

The clause itself really doesnt matter just made it up for sake of debate so please just assume its binding. (agree 2 years wouldnt likely hold)

With substituted service does this mean that they drop it to say a relative and make the assumption that you should get notified?

If the case did go ahead based on this could the ruling then be overturned if you at a later date could prove you had never been informed?

FreudianSlippers

castie wrote: »

The clause itself really doesnt matter just made it up for sake of debate so please just assume its binding. (agree 2 years wouldnt likely hold)

With substituted service does this mean that they drop it to say a relative and make the assumption that you should get notified?

If the case did go ahead based on this could the ruling then be overturned if you at a later date could prove you had never been informed?

It's slightly more complicated than that. For example, to where in the world have you moved?