Cushman and Wakefield v Patterson

Cushman and Wakefield brought an application in the Supreme Court of Queensland against Patterson, seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent Patterson from breaching a restraint of trade clause in his employment contract. The dispute centred on the enforceability of a non-compete clause that was included in Patterson's employment agreement with Cushman and Wakefield. The court was tasked with determining whether Cushman and Wakefield had established a sufficiently serious arguable case for a final injunction and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction.

The primary legal issue was whether the restraint of trade clause was reasonable and enforceable, taking into account the principles established by the High Court in Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Wellcome International Pty Ltd. The court had to consider the nature of the restraint, the legitimate interests of the employer, the impact on the employee, and the public interest. The court also assessed whether Cushman and Wakefield had demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the enforceability of the clause and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction.

The court found that Cushman and Wakefield had made out a serious arguable case that the restraint of trade clause was enforceable, given the nature of Patterson's role and the legitimate business interests of the employer in protecting confidential information and client relationships. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction, as the potential harm to Cushman and Wakefield from Patterson breaching the restraint outweighed any inconvenience to Patterson. The court therefore granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining Patterson from breaching the restraint of trade clause during the pendency of the proceedings.