Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper - [2015] QSC 155

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper & Ors [2015] QSC 155

PARTIES:

AUTO PARTS GROUP PTY LTD
ACN 065 899 176
(applicant)
v
MYRETTA COOPER
(first respondent)
BRYAN DOIG
(second respondent)
STERLING PARTS (QLD) PTY LTD
ACN 155 400 105
(third respondent)

FILE NO:

BS 4768/15

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

5 June 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

3 June 2015 – 4 June 2015

JUDGE:

Bond J

ORDERS:

The orders of the court are:

1.          The applicant is to file and serve a form of order reflecting these reasons for judgment on or before 9 June 2015.

2.          If any respondent disagrees with the applicant’s proposed form of order, then that party is to file and serve any proposed form of order on or before 12 June 2015.

3.          On or before 17 June 2015, each party is to file and serve such written submissions as they wish with respect to the proposed form of order, including any submissions as to costs.

4.          The proceeding is to be listed for further hearing on any outstanding matters arising from the proposed forms of order and submissions at 9.15am on 19 June 2015.

5.          Filing of the proposed forms of order and submissions is to take place electronically to my Associate

6.          Until the forms of order are finalised in accordance with the previous orders:

(a) the first and second respondents are restrained from attending any premises operated or maintained by the third respondent;

(b) the first and second respondents are restrained from communicating with that company or any agent representative employee or related entity of that company other than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or as may be necessary for the conduct of the proceeding;

(c) the parties have liberty to apply on 24 hours notice.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – OTHER REGULATION OF TRADE OR COMMERCE – RESTRAINTS OF TRADE – VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS – PARTICULAR CASES – EMPLOYMENT – where the applicant was involved in the sale of automotive parts - where the first and second respondent were employed by the applicant – where the first and second respondents’ contracts of employment included a restraint clause – where the first and second respondents were subsequently employed by the third respondent – where the applicant alleged that the third respondent was a competitor – where the applicant alleged this was a breach of the first and second respondent’s contract of employment – where the respondents alleged that the clause was unreasonable and unenforceable – whether the first and second respondent were in breach of their previous contracts of employment – whether the restraint of trade clause was reasonable

COUNSEL:

N Ferrett for the applicant
M Smith for the first, second and third respondents

SOLICITORS:

Milner Lawyers for the applicant
Bennett Carroll Solicitors for the first, second and third respondents

Introduction

The applicant, Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd, (“APG”) is a company engaged in the importation and wholesaling of automotive…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QSC 155
Decision Date: 5 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd brought an action against Cooper, the first and second respondents, and a third respondent, a competitor in the automotive parts industry. The applicant alleged that the respondents breached their employment contracts by working for the third respondent, which contained a restraint of trade clause. The respondents argued that the restraint clause was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. The court was required to determine whether the respondents were in breach of their previous contracts of employment and whether the restraint of trade clause was reasonable.

The court considered the nature of the restraint of trade clause, its duration, and the extent of the geographical restriction. It was noted that the clause was broad and did not limit the respondents' ability to work in the automotive parts industry altogether. The court also considered the legitimate interests of the applicant in protecting its business and intellectual property. The court found that the restraint of trade clause was reasonable and enforceable to the extent necessary to protect the applicant's legitimate business interests. However, the court considered that the restraint went beyond what was necessary to protect those interests and was therefore unreasonable and unenforceable to the extent that it prevented the respondents from working in the automotive parts industry altogether.

The orders of the court were that the applicant was to file and serve a form of order reflecting these reasons for judgment on or before 9 June 2015. If any respondent disagreed with the applicant's proposed form of order, then that party was to file and serve any proposed form of order on or before 12 June 2015. On or before 17 June 2015, each party was to file and serve such written submissions as they wished with respect to the proposed form of order, including any submissions as to costs. The proceeding was to be listed for further hearing on any outstanding matters arising from the proposed forms of order and submissions at 9.15am on 19 June 2015. Until the forms of order were finalised in accordance with the previous orders, the first and second respondents were restrained from attending any premises operated or maintained by the third respondent and from communicating with that company or any agent representative employee or related entity of that company other than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or as may be necessary for the conduct of the proceeding. The parties had liberty to apply on 24 hours notice.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders of the court are:

1. The applicant is to file and serve a form of order reflecting these reasons for judgment on or before 9 June 2015.

2. If any respondent disagrees with the applicant’s proposed form of order, then that party is to file and serve any proposed form of order on or before 12 June 2015.

3. On or before 17 June 2015, each party is to file and serve such written submissions as they wish with respect to the proposed form of order, including any submissions as to costs.

4. The proceeding is to be listed for further hearing on any outstanding matters arising from the proposed forms of order and submissions at 9.15am on 19 June 2015.

5. Filing of the proposed forms of order and submissions is to take place electronically to my Associate

6. Until the forms of order are finalised in accordance with the previous orders:

(a) the first and second respondents are restrained from attending any premises operated or maintained by the third respondent;

(b) the first and second respondents are restrained from communicating with that company or any agent representative employee or related entity of that company other than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or as may be necessary for the conduct of the proceeding;

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.

CITATION:	Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd v Cooper & Ors [2015] QSC 155
PARTIES:	AUTO PARTS GROUP PTY LTD ACN 065 899 176 (applicant) v MYRETTA COOPER (first respondent) BRYAN DOIG (second respondent) STERLING PARTS (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 155 400 105 (third respondent)
FILE NO:	BS 4768/15
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	5 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	3 June 2015 – 4 June 2015
JUDGE:	Bond J
ORDERS:	The orders of the court are: 1. The applicant is to file and serve a form of order reflecting these reasons for judgment on or before 9 June 2015. 2. If any respondent disagrees with the applicant’s proposed form of order, then that party is to file and serve any proposed form of order on or before 12 June 2015. 3. On or before 17 June 2015, each party is to file and serve such written submissions as they wish with respect to the proposed form of order, including any submissions as to costs. 4. The proceeding is to be listed for further hearing on any outstanding matters arising from the proposed forms of order and submissions at 9.15am on 19 June 2015. 5. Filing of the proposed forms of order and submissions is to take place electronically to my Associate 6. Until the forms of order are finalised in accordance with the previous orders: (a) the first and second respondents are restrained from attending any premises operated or maintained by the third respondent; (b) the first and second respondents are restrained from communicating with that company or any agent representative employee or related entity of that company other than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or as may be necessary for the conduct of the proceeding; (c) the parties have liberty to apply on 24 hours notice.
CATCHWORDS:	TRADE AND COMMERCE – OTHER REGULATION OF TRADE OR COMMERCE – RESTRAINTS OF TRADE – VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS – PARTICULAR CASES – EMPLOYMENT – where the applicant was involved in the sale of automotive parts - where the first and second respondent were employed by the applicant – where the first and second respondents’ contracts of employment included a restraint clause – where the first and second respondents were subsequently employed by the third respondent – where the applicant alleged that the third respondent was a competitor – where the applicant alleged this was a breach of the first and second respondent’s contract of employment – where the respondents alleged that the clause was unreasonable and unenforceable – whether the first and second respondent were in breach of their previous contracts of employment – whether the restraint of trade clause was reasonable
COUNSEL:	N Ferrett for the applicant M Smith for the first, second and third respondents
SOLICITORS:	Milner Lawyers for the applicant Bennett Carroll Solicitors for the first, second and third respondents