Dundoen Pty Ltd v Richard Wills (Real Estate) Pty Ltd

The case of Dundoen Pty Ltd v Richard Wills (Real Estate) Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Dundoen, suing the defendant, Richard Wills (Real Estate), for breach of contract and seeking an injunction enforcing restrictive covenants. Dundoen, a real estate company, had entered into an oral contract of employment with the defendant, a real estate agent, who was to be paid a commission on sales made. Subsequently, a written contract was signed, which Dundoen contended was intended to discharge and replace the earlier oral contract. The central dispute was whether the written agreement was intended to replace the oral contract and, if so, whether the restrictive covenants in the written agreement were reasonable and enforceable.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide included whether the written agreement was intended to replace the earlier oral contract and, if so, whether the restrictive covenants contained in the written agreement were reasonable and enforceable. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the plaintiff had a legitimate protectable interest in the customer connection and whether the non-solicitation, non-competition, no-dealing, and non-encouragement restraints were no more than reasonable to protect that interest.

The court found that the written agreement was indeed intended to discharge and replace the earlier oral contract. It considered that the restrictive covenants were intended to protect Dundoen's legitimate interest in its customer connection. The court concluded that the restrictive covenants were reasonable and enforceable. It found that the restraints were no more than necessary to protect Dundoen's customer connection and were not overly restrictive. The court granted an injunction enforcing the restrictive covenants.

The court ordered that the restrictive covenants contained in the written agreement were enforceable, and the defendant was restrained from engaging in activities that contravened these covenants. The court further directed that the defendant abide by the terms of the written agreement, including the restrictive covenants, and refrained from actions that would breach these terms.