[2007] QCA 107
COURT OF APPEAL
JERRARD JA
WILSON J
DOUGLAS J
Appeal No 9850 of 2006
SC No 2426 of 2004
ALF NO 12 PTY LTD Appellant
ACN 083 197 380
v
GRAHAM L STARKEY Respondent
BRISBANE
DATE 30/03/2007
ORDER
JERRARD JA: The order of the Court will be in accordance with the terms on the handwritten draft signed by myself and dated by myself and placed with the papers.
Details
- AGLC
- ALF No 12 Pty Ltd v Starkey [2007] QCA 107
- Case
- [2007] QCA 107
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, ALF No 12 Pty Ltd appealed against a decision of the primary judge, who found that Graham L Starkey had breached a restraint of trade clause in his contract of employment. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable. The primary judge found that the clause was reasonable in its terms and therefore enforceable.
The Court of Appeal found that the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable, as it was reasonable in its terms. The clause restrained the respondent from engaging in any business that was competitive with the appellant's business for a period of two years after the termination of his employment. The Court found that the clause was necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the appellant and was not contrary to public policy. The Court also found that the clause was not unreasonable in its geographical scope, as the respondent had agreed to the terms of the clause and had not raised any objections at the time of signing the contract.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the primary judge. The Court found that the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable and that the respondent had breached the clause by engaging in a business that was competitive with the appellant's business. The Court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable, as it was reasonable in its terms. The clause restrained the respondent from engaging in any business that was competitive with the appellant's business for a period of two years after the termination of his employment. The Court found that the clause was necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the appellant and was not contrary to public policy. The Court also found that the clause was not unreasonable in its geographical scope, as the respondent had agreed to the terms of the clause and had not raised any objections at the time of signing the contract.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the primary judge. The Court found that the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable and that the respondent had breached the clause by engaging in a business that was competitive with the appellant's business. The Court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.