Is this a non compete clause and does it prevent me working for a competitor

[KeiraBlackDove]

Have been offered a role with a direct financial services competitor.

Please could someone let me know if clause d) from my existing contract prevents me from working for a competitor for 6 months?

I really hope not.

Thank you

It would appear to me that you are unable to work elsewhere, offering the same services for 6 months, however you may be able to argue that this is a restrictive clause that means you cannot carry out your daily work . It definitely says you cannot approach their clients, directly, or indirectly for 6 months.

Thank you - I work in a back office, non client facing role.

I think I should bring this to the attention of my new employer. However worried about them withdrawing my offer! Has anyone seen this happen in the past?

I’d post in Legal if I were you. There are some employment lawyers on there who are v generous with their expertise

What is “restricted business and services” defined as? It should be just above this screenshot.

The clause has no effect unless the company you moved to also recruited a senior person at the same time. It is designed to stop senior staff leaving and taking their team with them.

Posting in legal is a good idea. From my time studying law, a very long time ago, so my memory is hazy, such restrictive clauses have to be reasonable taking all factors into account. For a non client facing role, my personal view is that a six month restriction is unreasonable and that courts would be unlikely to uphold it.

Thank you so much for your speedy responses everyone.

I will also post in Legal now as suggested.

Many thanks

It is a restraint of trade clause.
However imo the scope it to wide.
Clause d) is you and someone else moving as an assumed team to any similar roles in connected industries so you are at risk for 6 months for something you cant control. The other person can be employed in any business your new employer has dealing with. In theory you could be sued in a personal capacity.
I would give your whole contract over to someone who is a HR specialist as the last thing you need is your old job causing problems. And it depends on how they manage staff leaving.

They are pretty unenforceable - don't worry about it.

I agree with @AnSolas , and @jellyfishperiwinkle has given very silly advice. They are often unenforceable, but since we cannot ascertain that this isn't one of the enforceable ones, then telling someone not to worry about something that could result in them losing their job and/or being personally sued, really isn't a great piece of advice. The OP needs to speak to someone in HR or employment law about the entirety of the contract including the definitions of terms used. It probably won't be a problem, but deciding it isn't based on nothing would be foolish.

Thank you so much everyone - I think I will forward this section of my contract to my new employer and also run it past an employment lawyer.

They are not.
The employer can obtain an injunction against employee preventing her employment by the new employer. Its unlikely to happen if the staff member is a junior or has no access to compeditive /insider information.

However in the OPs industry a single contractual relationship could be worth millions to a new employer. The OP could have built very valuable personal relationships (internal or external) or be aware of service weakness in her current job that would result in her employer being willing to enforce the contract.

Well, I should have said, unlikely to be enforceable, as it seems too widely drafted and to not apply to the OP in any event.

You are right to get advice on how to respond. I can tell you that you have the right to trade. I've been through this too.

I can only give half a view as I’ve only seen half a clause, but it only seems to be stopping you from working for a competitor providing similar services ONLY IF an employee of their business already works there?

So it isn’t a blanket ban on competition, no. And it’s quite odd drafting!

It’s possible though to negotiate with your employer to politely ask to have the restriction removed. And given the cost of injunctions, it’s rarely used in practice (I’ve only seen two attempts in 17 years and incidentally, both failed). Most employers use them as a deterrent rather than a legally enforceable provision.

So frankly most of the time, unless you’re doing significant financial damage, they probably won’t do very much (unless they’re bloody minded).

MrsPinkCock as @Aaron95 points out its designed to stop a business rapidly building out a new team by enticing a high functioning team into their business. Same idea as not allowing work teams to play the lotteries which could create a hole in their business overnight.