Georges Apparel Pty Ltd v Giardina

The plaintiffs, Georges Apparel Pty Ltd, sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, including Giardina, to restrain the first defendant from engaging in activities that would breach a non-compete clause. The dispute involved the enforceability of a restraint of trade clause in an employment agreement. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were in breach of the non-compete clause and sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent further breaches. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the non-compete clause was unenforceable and that any potential breach could be adequately remedied by damages. They also argued that the proposed orders would cause them undue hardship.

The court had to determine whether the removal of the non-compete clause was genuinely negotiated and whether the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs. The court also considered whether the delivery up of computer devices by the first defendant would provide sufficient protection and whether the parties were capable of assessing their best interests at the time of contracting. Additionally, the court assessed the adequacy of damages as a remedy for any breach and the potential hardship the proposed orders would impose on the defendants.

The court found that the non-compete clause had been genuinely negotiated and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs. The court held that the delivery up of computer devices by the first defendant would not provide sufficient protection and that the parties were capable of assessing their best interests at the time of contracting. The court also determined that damages would not be an adequate remedy for any breach and that the proposed orders would expose the first defendant to hardship. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs an interlocutory injunction to restrain the first defendant from engaging in activities that would breach the non-compete clause.

The court ordered that the first defendant deliver up all computer devices and electronic storage devices to the plaintiffs and refrain from engaging in any activities that would breach the non-compete clause. The court also ordered that the first defendant pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application.