Genesys Wealth Advisers Ltd v Miles (No 2)

Genesys Wealth Advisers Limited (Genesys) sued Miles, a former employee, over his alleged breach of a post-employment restraint of trade covenant. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain Miles from engaging in activities that contravened the restraint. The primary focus was on the form of the injunction and whether it was appropriate to use the exact terms of the covenant in the injunction.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the covenant was clear and unambiguous, and if so, whether the injunction should be granted in the precise terms of the covenant. Genesys argued that the covenant was clear and unambiguous, and the injunction should mirror the terms of the covenant. Miles contended that the covenant was ambiguous and that an injunction should not be granted in the exact terms of the covenant.

The Court held that the covenant was clear and unambiguous, and the injunction should be granted in the precise terms of the covenant. The Court found that the language of the covenant was clear and that the parties' intentions were easily ascertainable. The Court also found that the use of the exact terms of the covenant in the injunction was appropriate, as it would provide clarity and certainty for both parties. The Court emphasised the importance of a clear and unambiguous covenant, and that the injunction should reflect the precise terms of the covenant to ensure that the restrained activities are easily identifiable. The Court granted the injunction in the terms of the covenant, and ordered Miles to comply with the terms of the covenant.