Ryar wrote: ↑
Wed Jan 05, 2022 3:48 am
That's taking too far away in the argument for the heck of it. To be specific to this subject, as long as an engineer is used as an engineer, whether it is on a race car or road car (which is the case for Fallows)
, there is no question of any issue in terms of fair employment of the skils of the individual. So I don't think we have an argument here.
This is impossible to know without seeing the wording of his contract, which you and I will never get to see.
The court will assess the wording of the contract, and then decide if one party or the other has breached that contract. If they do decide Fallows is in breach of the contract i.e. he was not constructively dismissed, they will then assess if the notice period and restrictive covenant clauses in the contract are reasonable.
In terms of outcome, typically the employer would need to demonstrate financial loss, which the court would then order defendant to compensate the employer for. However, I believe Red Bull are possibly pushing for an injunction to prevent Fallows from joining Aston Martin and possibly any other F1 team. For this to happen, Red Bull will need to demonstrate the injunction is necessary to protect their business interests. The length of the injunction will be determined based on what is reasonable, not necessarily exactly what is specified in the contract.
Your assertions that Fallows must comply with the contract as written, and that the court cannot "overrule" the contract are false. The contract has already been breached, the court is going to determine who breached it and then issue a remedy. The court will decide the remedy, it won't automatically be what's written in the contract, it must be reasonable and the court will determine what is reasonable.