Reported Decision: 73 IPR 326
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Del Casale & Ors. v. Artedomus (Aust) Pty. Limited [2007] NSWCA 172 HEARING DATE(S): 9 February 2007
JUDGMENT DATE:
18 July 2007JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; McColl JA at 73; Campbell JA at 74 DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Claimants to bring in Short Minutes of Orders giving effect to reasons for judgment CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - EMPLOYMENT - EQUITY - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Confidential information - Restraint of trade - Obligations of employee as to confidential information after termination of employment - Whether subject to implied term in contract - Whether dependent on equitable rules concerning confidentiality - Categories of confidential information - Trade secrets - General know-how of employees - Effect of explicit contractual restraint - Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s.183 - Moulding of remedies - Whether permanent injunction excessive. LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s.183 CASES CITED: Amber Size & Chemical Co. Limited v. Menzel [1913] 2 Ch. 239
Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd v Del Casale & Ors (2006) 68 IPR 577
Balston Limited v. Headline Filters Limited [1987] FSR 330
Beach Petroleum v. Kennedy [1999] 48 NSWLR 1
Blyth Chemicals Ltd v Bushnell (1933) 49 CLR 66
Boucaut Bay Co Ltd v The Commonwealth (1927) 40 CLR 98
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Bridge v Campbell Discount Co Ltd [1962] AC 600
Butt v. Long (1953) 88 CLR 476
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Cactus Imaging Pty Limited v Glenn Peters [2006] NSWSC 717
Cash Orders (Amalgamated) Ltd v Haynes (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 157
Cassis v. Kalfus (No.2) [2004] NSWCA 315
Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) Limited [1969] RPC 41
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority (NSW) (1982) 149 CLR 337
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v. Collector of Customs (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434
Cream v. Bushcolt Pty. Limited (2004) ATPR 42-004, [2004] WASCA 82
Deta Nominees Pty Ltd v Viscount Plastic Products Pty Ltd [1979] VR 167
E. Worsley & Co. Limited v. Cooper [1939] 1 AllER 290
Faccenda Chicken Limited v. Fowler [1987] Ch. 117
Guildford Motor Company Limited v. Horne [1933] 1 Ch. 935
H & R Block Limited v. Sanott [1976] 1 NZLR 213
Half Court Tennis Pty Ltd v Seymour (1980) 53 FLR 240
Haynes v Doman [1899] 2 Ch 13
Herbert Morris Limited v. Saxelby [1915] 2 Ch. 57
Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] AC 356
ICT Pty. Limited v. Sea Containers Limited (1995) 39 NSWLR 640
In Re Irish, Irish v Irish (1888) 40 Ch D 49
Industrial Rollformers Pty. Limited v. Ingersoll-Rand (Australia) Limited (2001) Aust. Contract R 90-129, [2001] NSWCA 111
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Birt [2006] NSWSC 995
Kirchner v Gruban [1909] 1 Ch 413
Lamb v Evans [1893] 1 Ch 218
Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr [1991] 1 All ER 418
Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2007] NSWCA 172
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd* concerned a dispute between former employees, Mr. Del Casale and others, and their former employer, Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd. The employees had left Artedomus to establish a competing business, and Artedomus alleged that they had misused confidential information and breached their contractual obligations. The matter came before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the former employees had breached their obligations of confidentiality to Artedomus, both under implied terms of their employment contracts and under equitable principles governing confidential information. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of confidential information that employees are prohibited from using or disclosing after their employment ends, distinguishing between trade secrets and general employee know-how. The court also considered the effect of an explicit restraint of trade clause in the employment contracts and whether the remedies sought by Artedomus, including a permanent injunction, were appropriate.
The Court of Appeal considered the nature of confidential information in the context of employment, noting that while employees are generally free to use their general skills and knowledge acquired during employment, they are bound by obligations of confidentiality regarding specific information that constitutes a trade secret or is otherwise imparted in confidence. The court examined the evidence to ascertain which information, if any, fell into the category of confidential information that the former employees were prohibited from using. The court also assessed the enforceability and scope of the express restraint of trade clause and the appropriateness of injunctive relief in light of the established breaches.
Leave to appeal was granted, and the claimants were directed to submit Short Minutes of Orders that would give effect to the court's reasons for judgment.
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the former employees had breached their obligations of confidentiality to Artedomus, both under implied terms of their employment contracts and under equitable principles governing confidential information. Specifically, the court had to determine the scope of confidential information that employees are prohibited from using or disclosing after their employment ends, distinguishing between trade secrets and general employee know-how. The court also considered the effect of an explicit restraint of trade clause in the employment contracts and whether the remedies sought by Artedomus, including a permanent injunction, were appropriate.
The Court of Appeal considered the nature of confidential information in the context of employment, noting that while employees are generally free to use their general skills and knowledge acquired during employment, they are bound by obligations of confidentiality regarding specific information that constitutes a trade secret or is otherwise imparted in confidence. The court examined the evidence to ascertain which information, if any, fell into the category of confidential information that the former employees were prohibited from using. The court also assessed the enforceability and scope of the express restraint of trade clause and the appropriateness of injunctive relief in light of the established breaches.
Leave to appeal was granted, and the claimants were directed to submit Short Minutes of Orders that would give effect to the court's reasons for judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal granted. Claimants to bring in Short Minutes of Orders giving effect to reasons for judgment
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.