GBAR (Australia) Pty Ltd v Brown

GBAR (Australia) Pty Ltd and others sought an injunction and damages against the Brown respondents in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicants, who had purchased an asbestos removal business from the second respondent, sought to enforce a restraint of trade clause contained in a Settlement Agreement and an Employment Agreement. They argued the clause was necessary to protect their business interests and goodwill. The Browns resisted the application, claiming the restraint was unreasonable and sought to protect the applicants' business interests beyond what was necessary.

The court was required to decide whether the restraint of trade clauses sought to protect the employer's interests or the goodwill of the business sold. If they were to protect the employer's interests, the court had to determine whether the restraint went beyond what was reasonable. The court also had to consider if the restraint extended to potential future expansion of the business. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the restraint in the Employment Agreement was reasonable.

The court found that the restraint of trade clauses in both agreements sought to protect the goodwill of the business sold. The court concluded that the restraint went beyond what was reasonable to protect that interest, as it extended to potential future expansion of the business. The restraint in the Employment Agreement was also found to be unreasonable. Additionally, the court considered the applicants' delay in bringing the proceedings and the respondents' offer of an account of profits. The balance of convenience did not favour granting interlocutory relief.

The application for an injunction and damages was dismissed. The court found the restraint of trade clauses unreasonable and not in line with the principles of equity and good conscience. The court also took into account the applicants' delay in bringing the proceedings and the respondents' offer to account for profits. The court concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of interlocutory relief.