G & M and Ors

The Full Federal Court considered an appeal by G & M and Ors (the appellants) against a decision of a single judge of that court. The dispute concerned the validity of certain provisions within a deed of settlement and release, which the appellants argued were void for illegality. The primary judge had found these provisions to be valid and enforceable.

The central legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the impugned provisions of the deed were void for illegality, specifically by reason of contravening the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) (CCA) and the common law doctrine of restraint of trade. The appellants contended that these provisions imposed unreasonable restraints on their ability to conduct business.

The Court analysed the nature of the restraints imposed by the deed, considering the context in which it was entered into and the legitimate business interests it sought to protect. Applying established principles of contract law and the CCA, the Court determined that the provisions in question did not go beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect those interests and therefore were not void for illegality or as an unreasonable restraint of trade. The Court found that the primary judge had correctly assessed the validity of the provisions.