Femcare Limited v Bright and Anor S110/2000

Femcare Limited appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the interpretation of a restraint of trade clause in an employment agreement between Femcare and its former employee, Mr. Bright. Femcare sought to enforce this clause to prevent Mr. Bright from working for a competitor.

The High Court was required to determine whether the restraint of trade clause was void as being contrary to public policy. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the clause went beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect Femcare's legitimate business interests, such as its trade secrets and confidential information, and whether it unduly restricted Mr. Bright's ability to earn a living.

Gaudron and Callinan JJ, in their joint judgment, found that the restraint of trade clause was indeed void. They reasoned that the clause was too wide in its geographical scope and duration, and that it prohibited Mr. Bright from engaging in activities that were not in competition with Femcare's business. The court applied the established legal principles that restraints of trade are prima facie void and will only be upheld if they are reasonable, both in the interests of the parties and the public. The court found that Femcare had failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the restraint in this instance.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court.