Cushman & Wakefield Agency (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hudson (No 2)

The case of Cushman & Wakefield Agency (NSW) Pty Ltd v Hudson (No 2) involved the plaintiff, a real estate agency, and the defendant, an employee, who had signed an employment contract with post-employment restraints. The dispute centred on the validity and reasonableness of the restraint clauses, the objective intention to be bound by the entire contract, and whether the walk-out constituted an unequivocal acceptance of the employer's repudiation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the restraints imposed on the defendant were valid and reasonable, considering their length and scope. It was also necessary to decide whether the defendant was bound by the entire contract, despite signing in only one designated space, and whether the walk-out constituted an unequivocal acceptance of the employer's alleged repudiation. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the restraint and notice provisions should be rectified for a common mistake, and if the restraint provisions were vitiated by misleading and deceptive conduct.

The court found that the length and scope of the restraints were limited and justified by the nature of the defendant's role in the Sydney CBD office leasing market. The court held that the objective intention to be bound by the entire contract was established despite the defendant signing in only one space, as the contract was sent as a single PDF attachment. The court also found that the walk-out did not constitute a clear and unequivocal acceptance of the employer's alleged repudiation. Additionally, the court determined that the restraint and notice provisions were not vitiated by misleading and deceptive conduct, as the alleged representations were not proven. The court further held that the restraint and notice provisions should not be rectified for a common mistake, as the common intention was not established.

As a result of the court's decision, the restraint clauses were deemed valid and reasonable, and the defendant was bound by the entire contract. The employer was not found to have repudiated the contract, and the defendant's walk-out did not constitute an acceptance of such repudiation. Consequently, the court issued an order enforcing the restraint clauses in the employment contract.