Legal Research
Cases
Femcare Ltd v Bright

Femcare Ltd v Bright

Case [2000] HCATrans 566 15 December 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S110 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
FEMCARE LIMITED
Applicant
and
KERRIE BRIGHT
First Respondent
ENDOVASIVE PTY LIMITED
Second Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2000, AT 4.23 PM

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please your Honours, I appear with my learned friends, MR M.A. FRIEDGUT, and MR J.K. KIRK, for the applicant. (instructed by Freehills)

MR A.J.L. BANNON, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.R. CLARKE, for the respondent. (instructed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman)

GAUDRON J: Thank you.

MR WALKER: Your Honour, by consent, may I hand up some short minutes of order and form of amendment application by which Endovasive Pty Limited is joined as second respondent. My learned friend, Mr Deakin, is here. I hope to indicate that he does not oppose anything I say.

MR P.J. DEAKIN, QC: Indeed. We seek leave, that order having been made by consent, to file appearances on behalf of the second respondent. We do consent to the application, subject, of course, to the Court. (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

GAUDRON J: I am sorry; you consent to which application?

MR DEAKIN: The application to join us and the application, so your Honour need not call on us again.

GAUDRON J: Thank you. Orders will be made in accordance with the – you do not object; you cannot object to that, Mr Bannon, can you.

MR BANNON: We do not.

GAUDRON J: Orders will be made in accordance with the short minutes of orders handed up in Court this day and Mr Deakin’s appearance is noted. Yes, Mr Walker.

CALLINAN J: Mr Walker, before you start, can I just ask you a couple of questions, please? Your challenge seems to be to the totality of Part IVA, is that correct?

MR WALKER: That is the primary way we put it. As your Honour has seen, there are alternatives, but it is as well to make it the whole of Part IVA because of the schematic nature of it.

CALLINAN J: Yes. In this case, the causes of action include non‑federal causes of action, as it were. Is that right?

MR WALKER: Yes. One could be forgiven for thinking they are the main ones.

CALLINAN J: Well, do you challenge, for example, separately or in the alternative, do you challenge to Part IVA, for example, 37ZE, which purports to suspend limitation periods? Is there any question of the operation of that upon, if I can put it this way, non-federal causes of action?

MR WALKER: We have not. It has not been a matter which, even with the perversity we may be thought already to have exhibited, that is, to be protesting the interest of group members, it has not yet fallen…

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 Femcare Ltd v Bright

Details

AGLC: Femcare Ltd v Bright [2000] HCATrans 566
Case: [2000] HCATrans 566
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Femcare Ltd v Bright*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Femcare Ltd and Mr. Bright concerning the enforceability of a restraint of trade clause contained within an employment contract. Mr. Bright had been employed by Femcare Ltd as a sales representative and, upon termination of his employment, sought to engage in activities that Femcare Ltd alleged were in breach of the restraint.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the restraint of trade clause, which sought to prevent Mr. Bright from engaging in certain competitive activities for a specified period after his employment ceased, was void as being contrary to public policy. This required the Court to assess the reasonableness of the restraint in terms of its duration, geographical scope, and the nature of the activities it sought to restrict, in light of the legitimate business interests of Femcare Ltd that required protection.

Gaudron and Callinan JJ, in their joint judgment, applied the established principles governing the enforceability of restraints of trade. They acknowledged that such restraints are prima facie void unless they can be shown to be reasonable, both in the interests of the parties and in the public interest. The Court examined the specific terms of the restraint, considering whether it went beyond what was necessary to protect Femcare Ltd's proprietary interests, such as confidential information and customer connections, and whether it unduly restricted Mr. Bright's ability to earn a living. The judgment underscored the importance of a careful balancing exercise, weighing the employer's need for protection against the employee's right to freedom of employment.

Orders