Bottoms v Featherstone

In the case of Bottoms v Featherstone, the plaintiffs, partners of the firm Bottoms English, sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from working as a solicitor except for their firm, following his termination of employment. The defendant had been employed as a solicitor with the plaintiffs since 1993, but concerns arose when he questioned an arrangement between the firm and a website called AussieLegal. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, the plaintiffs notified the defendant of his termination, which the defendant did not accept. The employment contract included a restraint of trade clause, and the plaintiffs sought an injunction to enforce this clause.

The court had to determine several legal issues. Firstly, whether the defendant remained an employee of the plaintiffs' firm, and thus bound by the restraint of trade clause. Secondly, whether the plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried regarding the defendant's employment status. Thirdly, the court considered the balance of convenience to determine if an injunction should be granted, taking into account the defendant's arguments about the adequacy of damages, the potential loss of his accreditation as a personal injury law specialist, and the impact on innocent third parties.

The court concluded that the issue of the defendant's employment status was not a serious question to be tried. The balance of convenience favoured the defendant, given the potential difficulties in quantifying his damages and the impact on his professional accreditation and third parties. Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, but the plaintiffs' application was subject to the defendant providing an undertaking to comply with certain professional conduct rules.