Ezeatm Ltd v Zani

In the case of Ezeatm Ltd v Zani, the respondent sought to enforce a restraint of trade covenant against the applicant, who was a former employee. The primary dispute involved the enforceability of a non-compete clause in the employment contract between the parties. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue was whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to enforce the restraint of trade clause. The court was required to consider whether the applicant had established a prima facie case that the restraint was enforceable, whether a prima facie case for final relief had been made out, and if the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. Additionally, the court assessed whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether the applicant had acted unreasonably.

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case that the restraint was enforceable. It was concluded that the applicant had demonstrated that the restraint was necessary to protect the respondent's legitimate business interests. The court further determined that the applicant had made out a prima facie case for final relief, indicating that there was a significant likelihood that the restraint would be upheld at trial. The balance of convenience was found to favour the grant of an interlocutory injunction as the respondent would suffer irreparable harm if the restraint was not enforced. The court also found that damages would not be an adequate remedy and that the applicant had not acted unreasonably in seeking to enforce the restraint.

The court granted the respondent an interlocutory injunction, restraining the applicant from engaging in activities that would breach the non-compete clause. The applicant was ordered to refrain from working for or with any competitor of the respondent for a specified period.