Daniels & Findlay (No 2)

In *Daniels & Findlay (No 2)*, the Supreme Court of Victoria considered a dispute between the plaintiff, Daniels & Findlay, and the defendant, who was the former employer of a key employee of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from continuing to employ the former employee, alleging breach of a restraint of trade clause in the employee's contract of employment.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract was reasonable and therefore enforceable. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the duration and geographical scope of the restraint were no wider than necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the plaintiff, considering the nature of the employee's role and the industry in which the plaintiff operated.

Dessau J found that the restraint of trade clause was unreasonable and therefore void. Her Honour reasoned that the duration of the restraint, coupled with its broad geographical scope, extended beyond what was necessary to protect the plaintiff's confidential information and customer connections. The Court applied the established legal principles governing restraints of trade, emphasizing that such clauses are prima facie void unless the party seeking to enforce them can demonstrate their reasonableness in protecting legitimate business interests and that they are not contrary to public policy. The Court noted that the employee's role, while important, did not justify such a wide-ranging restriction on their future employment.