Deeson Heavy Haulage Pty Ltd v Cox

Link copied
Case Copied 54 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Deeson Heavy Haulage Pty Ltd v Cox & Ors  [2009] QSC 277

PARTIES:

DEESON HEAVY HAULAGE PTY LTD

Plaintiffs

v

JASON MAURICE COX

First Defendant

And

MARK SHANE WATSON

Second Defendant

And

ELLEN MATTHEWS

Third Defendant

And

CENTRAL QUEENSLAND HEAVY HAULAGE PTY LTD

Fourth Defendant

FILE NO/S:

Mackay Registry S34/08

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

14 15 16 17 and 18 July 2008 and 16 – 20, 23, 24 , 26 and 27  March 2009

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the first, second and fourth defendants in the sum of $12,120 together with interest in the sum of $1684.68

2.   Judgment for the first defendant on his counterclaim against the plaintiff in the sum of $4,760 together with interest in the sum of $718.76

3.   The parties have liberty to apply within 7 days.

CATCHWORDS:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – OTHER RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES – DUTY OF GOOD FAITH OWED BY EMPLOYEE – where defendant solicited work while employed by the plaintiff - whether  breach

EMPLOYMENT LAW – OTHER RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PARTIES – DUTY OF CONFIDENCE OWED BY EMPLOYEE – whether duties survive termination of contract – whether breach

EQUITY - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – RULES AND MAXIMS OF EQUITY – doctrine of clean hands - whether conduct sufficiently connected to the suit to deprive plaintiff of equitable relief

EQUITY — REMEDIES — MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION— Application of "head start" or "springboard concept" to measure of liability.

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 183, s 1317H

Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) s 36

Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125

Maguire v Makaronis (1997) 188 CLR 449

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Mantonella Pty Ltd v Myles Thompson [2009] QCA 80

Wylie v ANI Corporation [2002] 1 Qd R 320

Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172

Forkserve Pty Ltd v Pacchiarotta [2000] NSWSC 979

Colour Control Centre Pty Ltd & Anor v Ty & Ors [1995] NSWSC 96

United States Surgical Corporation v Hospital Products International Pty Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 766

Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd (1968) 14 IPR 587

State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd  (1994) 37 AILR 5-018

Canadian Aero Service Ltd v. O'Malley (1973) 40 DLR (3d) 371

COUNSEL:

P Land for the plaintiff

C Heyworth-Smith for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Wallace and Wallace for the plaintiff

Macrossan and Amiet for the defendants

  1. McMeekin J: The plaintiff, Deeson Heavy Haulage Pty Ltd (“Deeson”), is, as its name implies, a company involved in the hauling of heavy loads. It has been involved in that business for several years.[1]  It is based in Mackay. Its sole director is Mr Cameron Strathdee.

    [1]Incorporated in 1999 but its principal Mr Strathdee traded as Strathdee Haulage for 20 years before that.

  1. The fourth defendant is a competitor of the plaintiff. Its…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Deeson Heavy Haulage Pty Ltd v Cox 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
[2009] QSC 277
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Deeson Heavy Haulage Pty Ltd sought relief against Cox and others, alleging breaches of duties of good faith and confidence by Cox, who solicited work for a competitor while employed by Deeson. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Cox's actions constituted a breach of his employment contract, and if Deeson was entitled to compensation. The court had to assess whether the duties of good faith and confidence owed by Cox to Deeson survived the termination of his employment and whether Cox's actions were sufficiently connected to the suit to invoke the doctrine of clean hands.

The court found that Cox had breached his duty of good faith by soliciting work for a competitor while still employed by Deeson. It was held that such duties do indeed survive the termination of the employment contract. The court also determined that Cox's conduct was sufficiently connected to the suit, thus allowing the application of the doctrine of clean hands. Regarding the measure of liability, the court applied the "head start" or "springboard concept," which recognises that the misuse of confidential information can provide a "head start" in the market, allowing for a more comprehensive measure of damages.

Deeson Heavy Haulage Pty Ltd was awarded judgment against Cox and others, receiving compensation of $12,120 plus interest of $1,684.68. Cox, as the first defendant, was awarded $4,760 plus interest of $718.76 against Deeson on his counterclaim. The court granted both parties the liberty to apply within seven days for any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the first, second and fourth defendants in the sum of $12,120 together with interest in the sum of $1684.68

2. Judgment for the first defendant on his counterclaim against the plaintiff in the sum of $4,760 together with interest in the sum of $718.76

3. The parties have liberty to apply within 7 days.

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

Full text does not contain this section.