Legal Research
Cases
Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited v Harrison

Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited v Harrison

Case [2014] NSWSC 470 23 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited v Harrison

Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWSC 470

Hearing Date(s): 22 and 23 April 2014

Decision Date: 23 April 2014

Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Duty List

Before: Ball J

Decision:
Proceedings dismissed.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - interlocutory injunction - whether to enforce restraint of trade clause in terminated employment contract

Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited: AMOCO Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 40; (1973) 133 CLR 288
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
In the matter of Courtesy Real Estate (NSW) Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 1666
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Koops Martin Financial Services Pty Ltd v Reeves [2006] NSWSC 449
National Mutual Holdings Pty Ltd v Sentry Corporation (1989) 22 FCR 209
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535
Rosewood Advertising Pty Ltd v Hannah Marketing Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 1034
Pearson v HRX Holdings Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 111; (2012) 205 FCR 187
Ross v IceTV Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 272
Woolworths Ltd v Olson [2004] NSWCA 372

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties: Fairfax Media Management Pty Ltd (First Plaintiff)
Fairfax Media Limited (Second Plaintiff)
Edward John Harrison (Defendant)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
SEJ Prince (Plaintiffs)
Dr AS Bell SC and RM Goot AM SC with Y Shariff (Defendant)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Seyfarth Shaw (Plaintiffs)
Johnson Winter & Slattery (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/117667

Publication Restriction: None

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

In these proceedings the plaintiffs, Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited and Fairfax Media Limited, seek an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, Mr Harrison, from working either directly or indirectly for Yahoo!7 Pty Limited (Yahoo!7) before 11 June 2014. Mr Harrison had worked as the Group Commercial Director of Australian Publishing Media (APM), a division of Fairfax, until his resignation on 10 December 2013. In this judgment, where it is not important to distinguish between companies in the Fairfax group, I will refer to them as Fairfax.
Mr Harrison commenced employment with Fairfax on 5 January 2009 originally as Commercial Director of Fairfax Digital at Fairfax Digital Australia and New Zealand Pty Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fairfax Media.
In October 2011, Mr Harrison was promoted to the position of the Commercial Director - Metro Media and, at that time, he signed a new executive service contract with Fairfax dated 13 October 2011.
Clause 10 of the contract deals with the post contractual restraints. It is in the following terms:
10. RESTRAINTS
10.1 The Executive shall not for a period of twelve (12) months after termination of Employment for any reason:
(a) approach, either directly or indirectly, on his own account or for any other person, any employee, contributor, supplier, agent, customer or client of the Group with a view to enticing them away from the Group; nor
(b) incite, encourage,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited v Harrison [2014] NSWSC 470
Case: [2014] NSWSC 470
Decision Date: 23 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited, an employer, and their former employee, Harrison. The dispute centred on whether the court should enforce a restraint of trade clause in Harrison's terminated employment contract. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The employer sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce the restraint of trade clause, arguing that it was necessary to protect its legitimate business interests. Harrison, on the other hand, contended that the clause was unreasonable and unenforceable.

The central legal issue for the court to decide was the validity and enforceability of the restraint of trade clause. The court needed to assess whether the clause was necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests and whether it was reasonable in its scope, duration, and geographical reach. The court also considered whether the clause was unconscionable or whether it represented an undue burden on the employee's ability to find alternative employment.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the restraint of trade clause was not necessary to protect the employer's legitimate business interests. The court held that the clause was overly broad in its scope, duration, and geographical reach, making it unreasonable and unenforceable. The court emphasised that any restraint of trade clause must be no wider than reasonably required to protect the employer's interests. Given the findings, the court refused to enforce the clause and dismissed the employer's application for an interlocutory injunction.

The court's final orders were that the restraint of trade clause in Harrison's employment contract was not enforceable, and the employer's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court did not award any costs to either party, reflecting the interlocutory nature of the proceedings.

Orders