THE BOSS Dave Donaghy - Broncos CEO

McHunt said:
At the point of him breaking a non-compete clause. He would have to accept the contract and commence work during the non-compete period.
Click to expand...
He hasn't commenced working for the Broncos but the legal threats have started
 
john1420 said:
He hasn't commenced working for the Broncos but the legal threats have started
Click to expand...
The contention is his start date, which lies inside the terms of his 6 month non-compete clause with Melbourne. Bellamy has a similar non-compete clause. There is no point in the Storm pursing legal action against Bellamy unless he announces his intention to breach his agreement with them.

Lest we forget Donaghy is clearly in the wrong here unless the Broncos lawyers can somehow contest the clause and render it invalid or illegal. One such avenue is proving a specific term of a contract was not met in the minds of both parties.
 
pagey said:
Well if they can't tell by the wooden spoon, then surely that's on them.
Click to expand...

It's like the Warriors signing Kearney after his tenure at Parramatta. You just can't help stupid.
 
McHunt said:
The contention is his start date, which lies inside the terms of his 6 month non-compete clause with Melbourne. Bellamy has a similar non-compete clause. There is no point in the Storm pursing legal action against Bellamy unless he announces his intention to breach his agreement with them.

Lest we forget Donaghy is clearly in the wrong here unless the Broncos lawyers can somehow contest the clause and render it invalid or illegal. One such avenue is proving a specific term of a contract was not met in the minds of both parties.
Click to expand...
I actually wonder if non-compete clauses are as worthless as the paper they are written on. Perhaps we will find out.
A lawyer friend once told me that those waivers a company makes sign when you do a dangerous activity (parachuting, bungee jumping, etc.) so you can't sue them if something goes wrong are totally useless. If you sustain an injury whilst doing such an activity, and said injury is the result of the companies negligence, they can be sued even if you have signed a waiver. So I asked what the point of the waiver is? He said it convinces most people they cannot sue so it reduces the chance they will be sued. Don't know if he was right, perhaps others in the know might like to comment?
 
john1420 said:
I actually wonder if non-compete clauses are as worthless as the paper they are written on. Perhaps we will find out.
A lawyer friend once told me that those waivers a company makes sign when you do a dangerous activity (parachuting, bungee jumping, etc.) so you can't sue them if something goes wrong are totally useless. If you sustain an injury whilst doing such an activity, and said injury is the result of the companies negligence, they can be sued even if you have signed a waiver. So I asked what the point of the waiver is? He said it convinces most people they cannot sue so it reduces the chance they will be sued. Don't know if he was right, perhaps others in the know might like to comment?
Click to expand...
I’d say the negligence bit is important. If said company does everything by the book and injury still occurs the waiver would stand imo. Not a lawyer or anything though.
 
tommy said:
I’d say the negligence bit is important. If said company does everything by the book and injury still occurs the waiver would stand imo. Not a lawyer or anything though.
Click to expand...
Yes, this. And other things. You can't agree to something that contradicts a statute of law or if you can prove you didn't have the capacity, for example you were drunk or mentally unhinged.

Non-compete clauses tend to be hard to enforce, so the Broncos' lawyers will have plenty to offer in defence. The Storm will not be allowed to prevent Donaghy from participating in the economy using his skill set. Melbourne will argue they are trying to protect their intellectual property. Although Donaghy is clearly in breach, I predict the Broncos will prevail.
 
Last edited:
john1420 said:
I actually wonder if non-compete clauses are as worthless as the paper they are written on. Perhaps we will find out.
A lawyer friend once told me that those waivers a company makes sign when you do a dangerous activity (parachuting, bungee jumping, etc.) so you can't sue them if something goes wrong are totally useless. If you sustain an injury whilst doing such an activity, and said injury is the result of the companies negligence, they can be sued even if you have signed a waiver. So I asked what the point of the waiver is? He said it convinces most people they cannot sue so it reduces the chance they will be sued. Don't know if he was right, perhaps others in the know might like to comment?
Click to expand...
Most of the time these clauses aren't enforceable and the business knows this, they are put in as a deterrent more so than a fail safe.

If it says you can't sue us, most people will just go oh well I signed it, and not bother. It costs nothing to add a bullshit clause, it might save a ton of money or give the business more bargaining power.
 
Last edited:
john1420 said:
I actually wonder if non-compete clauses are as worthless as the paper they are written on. Perhaps we will find out.
A lawyer friend once told me that those waivers a company makes sign when you do a dangerous activity (parachuting, bungee jumping, etc.) so you can't sue them if something goes wrong are totally useless. If you sustain an injury whilst doing such an activity, and said injury is the result of the companies negligence, they can be sued even if you have signed a waiver. So I asked what the point of the waiver is? He said it convinces most people they cannot sue so it reduces the chance they will be sued. Don't know if he was right, perhaps others in the know might like to comment?
Click to expand...
Legally I think they don't hold up but they are there to threaten if the other party doesn't have the money to fight it.

One of my mates was made redundant from a company that had a non-compete for 6 months and him and his mate went to start their own business in the same kind of industry. They got hit with a lawsuit and pulled out of it for 6 months and started after that. From what he told me the lawyer they got advice from said that there is no way it would stand up but would take probably more than the 6 months to play out so given the cost to fight it they recommended they lay low for 6 months and start then.
 
Well, I just did some very interesting reading on non-compete clauses, here's a few highlights......

"A restraint clause can’t be accepted on face value because the courts will uphold it only if it is ‘reasonable’. For example, a court won’t enforce a clause that unfairly interferes with a worker’s right to contribute their own labour. As stated by the High Court of Australia in Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353 at 380: “Unreasonable restraints are unenforceable as it is contrary to public welfare that a person should be unreasonably prevented from earning a living in whichever lawful way he chooses and that the public should be unlawfully deprived of his services.” Post-employment restraints are presumed to be invalid and unenforceable unless it can be shown that they are genuinely necessary to protect commercial interests. The onus is on the employer to demonstrate that a clause imposes no greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect these interests. Employers can’t use a restraint clause to protect themselves against the usual processes of competition in a sector or market. Generally, broad restrictions on competition won’t be deemed to be reasonable or enforceable. Legitimate interests that are commonly recognised as supporting a valid restraint include the employer’s confidential information or trade secrets, customers and clients of the business (business goodwill) and the employer’s staff."

https://www.seek.com.au/employer/hiring-advice/restraints-trade-non-compete-clauses-reasonable


"Simply because an employment contract contains a restraint provision, does not necessarily mean it is enforceable and it may be void.
The law in New South Wales is as stated in the case of Write v Gasweld (1991) 22 NSWLR 317:
An employer is not entitled to protect himself [or herself] against mere competition by a former employee, and the corollary of that is that the employee is entitled to use skills, experience and know-how acquired in the service of the former employer in legitimate competition…
However, the Courts will enforce a restraint if it is to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer, as long as those interests are important enough and the restraint goes only as far as necessary."

https://www.fglaw.com.au/non-compete-employment/


"A non-compete clause operates to restrict one party from undertaking competitive activities, which may also include employment. Trying to enforce an unreasonable non-compete clause is against the public policy of a market economy. Doing so may restrict a party from participating in the economy. A provision may be unreasonable if it prevents a party from offering their skills or undertaking further business activities. A court can sever certain sections of a clause if it considers the clause (or parts of the clause) to be unreasonable."

https://legalvision.com.au/how-does-a-non-compete-clause-work/
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 825
1:42:50
NSWRL Minor Semi Final, 1993 - Brisbane Broncos vs Canberra Raiders
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Battler
  • Wolfie
  • Broncosgirl
  • BroncosAlways
  • Porthoz
  • Old Mate
  • Fitzy
  • bb_gun
Total: 96 (members: 11, guests: 85)
Robots: 427
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.