Complete Field Maintenance Pty Ltd v Coulson - [2013] WASC 374

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: COMPLETE FIELD MAINTENANCE PTY LTD -v- COULSON [2013] WASC 374

CORAM: MARTIN CJ

HEARD: 1 OCTOBER 2013

DELIVERED : 1 OCTOBER 2013

FILE NO/S: CIV 2194 of 2013

BETWEEN: COMPLETE FIELD MAINTENANCE PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
KANE IAN COULSON
Defendant

Catchwords:

Injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Restraint of trade - Prime facie case - Balance of convenience - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr W G Spyker
Defendant: Ms R Cosentino

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Cornerstone Legal
Defendant: Slater & Gordon

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; (1968) 118 CLR 618
MARTIN CJ:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 1 October 2013 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The plaintiff, Complete Field Maintenance Pty Ltd (CFM), applies for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant Mr Kane Ian Coulson from being engaged with Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd whether on his own account or for and on behalf of any other entity, including but not limited to Pilbara Hire Group Pty Ltd, and also restraining him until further order from interfering directly or indirectly with the relationship between the plaintiff and Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd.
The application is made in the course of proceedings that have been commenced by a generally endorsed writ and in respect of which no statement of claim has yet been served. The indorsement of claim alleges that Mr Coulson has breached a contract of employment dated 12 November 2012, whereby CFM employed Mr Coulson as general manager and also foreshadows the claim for injunctive relief which has now been brought before the court.
The principles governing applications for interlocutory injunctive relief of this kind are well established. For Australian purposes they were set out conveniently in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; (1968) 118 CLR 618 in the following passage from the judgment of Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ where their Honours observed that in applications of this kind, the court addresses two main inquiries:
The first is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima face case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief (622).
The second inquiry is:
[W]hether the inconvenience or injury which the plaintiff would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the injury which the defendant would suffer if an injunction were granted (623).
In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 after referring to that passage, Gummow and Hayne JJ said:
By using the phrase 'prima facie case', their Honours did not mean that the plaintiff must show that it is…

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 Complete Field Maintenance Pty Ltd v Coulson 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: [2013] WASC 374
Decision Date: 1 OCTOBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Complete Field Maintenance Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction against Coulson and others, requesting restraint from engaging in activities that would breach certain terms of an agreement between the parties. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary dispute centred on allegations that Coulson, who had previously worked for Complete Field Maintenance, would breach a restraint of trade clause in his employment contract by engaging in similar business activities.

The court had to determine whether Complete Field Maintenance had established a prima facie case that there was a sufficient likelihood of success at trial to justify the preservation of the status quo. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the balance of convenience to decide whether the injunction should be granted. The reasoning involved assessing the strength of the probability of success, the nature of the rights asserted, and the practical consequences of granting or refusing the injunction.

The court found that Complete Field Maintenance had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claim, given the specific nature of their business and the terms of the restraint of trade clause. The court also concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, as the potential harm to Complete Field Maintenance if the injunction were not granted outweighed the harm to Coulson if it were granted. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of Complete Field Maintenance and issued the sought interlocutory injunction.

The final orders included the injunction against Coulson and the other respondents from engaging in activities that would breach the restraint of trade clause in his employment contract with Complete Field Maintenance.

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

In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 after referring to that passage, Gummow and Hayne JJ said:By using the phrase 'prima facie case', their Honours did not mean that the plaintiff must show that it is more probable than not that at trial the plaintiff will succeed; it is sufficient that the plaintiff show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial. That this was the sense in which the Court was referring to the notion of a prima facie case is apparent from an observation to that effect made by Kitto J in the course of argument. With reference to the first inquiry, the Court continued, in a statement of central importance for this appeal:How strong the probability needs to be depends, no doubt, upon the nature of the rights [the plaintiff] asserts and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order he seeks [65]. At [55] ‑ [71] of the judgment, Gummow and Hayne JJ referred to authority from other jurisdictions, particularly the United Kingdom. Their Honours observed that those authorities:[O]bscure the governing consideration that the requisite strength of the probability of ultimate success depends upon the nature of the rights asserted and the practical consequences likely to flow from the interlocutory order sought. The second of these matters, the reference to practical consequences is illustrated by the particular considerations which arise where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction, in effect, would dispose of the action finally in favour of whichever party succeeded on that application [71]. For reasons I will develop the last observation in this passage is pertinent to the present circumstances, where some aspects of the relief sought have the character of final relief. The facts upon which the application is brought are identified in the affidavits upon which the plaintiff relies and also by the affidavit upon which the defendant relies in opposition to the application for injunction. Mr Matthew Alan Steele is the sole director and secretary of CFM and has sworn the principal affidavit in support of the application for interlocutory relief. He deposes that the plaintiff carries on a business that services the resources industry in Western Australia by way of the provision of parts and labour hire in relation to mining machinery maintenance services. The business is conducted throughout Western Australia, although primarily servicing the mining industry in the Pilbara region. The plaintiff's largest client is Rio Tinto and Mr Steele asserts that the majority of the plaintiff's services are provided to Rio Tinto's mine site at Paraburdoo, and that over the course of the year, that site constitutes more than 50 per cent of the plaintiff's overall turnover. Mr Steele goes on to depose to the fact that CFM provides its services to Rio Tinto via Rio Tinto Procurement, being the trading name of the company Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd which is one of the companies in respect of which the interlocutory relief is sought.