Fairfax Media Management Pty Limited v Harrison

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.