DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hado

DuluxGroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (Dulux) sought an interlocutory injunction against Hado, a former employee, to restrain him from breaching his employment contract and a confidentiality agreement. The dispute concerned Hado's alleged use of confidential information and trade secrets obtained during his employment with Dulux, a paint manufacturer, for the benefit of his new employer, a competitor. The matter came before Judge Jarrett of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Dulux had established a strong prima facie case that Hado had breached his contractual obligations and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the Court had to consider the scope of Hado's restrictive covenants, the nature of the information he possessed, and the potential for irreparable harm to Dulux if Hado continued to use that information.

Judge Jarrett applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, requiring Dulux to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy. The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the confidential nature of Dulux's product formulations, manufacturing processes, and customer lists, and the likelihood that Hado had acquired and was using this information. The Court found that Dulux had established a strong prima facie case of breach of contract and that the potential harm to Dulux, including loss of competitive advantage and damage to its trade secrets, could not be adequately compensated by damages.

Consequently, Judge Jarrett granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining Hado from engaging in activities that would breach his employment contract and confidentiality agreement pending the final determination of the proceedings.