Juzh wrote: ↑
Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:34 pm
west52keep64 wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:47 pm
Jolle wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 06, 2022 11:29 pm
yes I know, but that means, with his case, the court basically will set a precedent now how British law will be explained from now on in these cases.
Yup, if the court ordered an injunction that prevented him from working for another F1 team until July 2023 that would certainly be precedent setting. That's why I honestly can't see that happening. The maximum length I can see them going for is 6 months, but Red Bull will have to make a very strong case for it because any such injunction is effectively preventing him from earning an income for that period of time, which probably isn't fair or reasonable. He could potentially work outside of F1 during that period as others have suggested, but he may argue that could be damaging to his career in F1.
Why would non-compete clauses even exist in contracts if they're not enforceable anyway?
You can write whatever you want in a contract, doesn’t mean they are legally enforceable.
It’s up to the courts to decide if they are reasonable or not.
In the UK, it usually goes to Acas arbitration first, to see if both parties can come to an agreement, if not then it will go to court and they will determine if the terms are reasonable and enforceable