Green Communications Aust Pty Ltd v Karabassis

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Green Communications Aust Pty Ltd v Karabassis [2004] FCA 429
GREEN COMMUNICATIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
(ACN 100 912 150) v GEORGE KARABASSIS & ORS
N 631 of 2003
LINDGREN J
5 APRIL 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 631 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

GREEN COMMUNICATIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 100 912 150)
APPLICANT

AND:

GEORGE KARABASSIS
FIRST RESPONDENT

DANIEL CHENG
SECOND RESPONDENT

GABRIEL JIM
THIRD RESPONDENT

DAWEN SHEN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FORTUNE CALLING CARD PTY LTD (ACN 098 113 690)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE OF ORDER:

5 APRIL 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 631 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

GREEN COMMUNICATIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 100 912 150)
APPLICANT

AND:

GEORGE KARABASSIS
FIRST RESPONDENT

DANIEL CHENG
SECOND RESPONDENT

GABRIEL JIM
THIRD RESPONDENT

DAWEN SHEN
FOURTH RESPONDENT

FORTUNE CALLING CARD PTY LTD (ACN 098 113 690)
FIFTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

LINDGREN J

DATE:

5 APRIL 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 30 January 2004, my Associate spoke to two of the legal representatives involved and emailed the other, pointing out to them that all parties had failed to comply with directions made on 15 September 2003. She reminded them that the proceeding was then listed for directions on Monday morning, 2 February 2004 at 9.30am. According to her note, all parties seemed to agree that the case was not ‘going anywhere’. The representatives of the applicant said that they had settled with the first respondent and were awaiting word from the other parties as to whether the proceeding was thought to be suitable for mediation.
On 2 February 2004 Mr Hassett appeared for the applicant and Mr Green for the first respondent. There was no appearance from the other respondents. The proceeding was stood over to 9 February 2004.
On 9 February 2004 Mr Hassett again appeared for the applicant, Mr Lynch for the second and third respondents and Mr Bilinsky for the fourth and fifth respondents. I granted leave to the applicant to file a notice of discontinuance as against the first, second and third respondents, and noted an agreement between the applicant and the first, second and third respondents that each party was to bear its own costs. The intention apparently was that the proceeding was to remain on foot as between the applicant and the fourth and fifth respondents. No notice of discontinuance as against the first, second and third respondents has, however, been filed.
Upon the matter being called this morning, neither the applicant nor any respondent has appeared.
In exercise of the power given to me by Order 10 subrule 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules, I will dismiss the application.
The order of the Court is that the application be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.
Associate:
Dated: 13 April 2004

The applicant did not appear.

The respondents did not appear.

Date of Hearing: 5 April 2004

Date of Judgment: 5 April 2004

Green Communications Australia Pty Ltd, a telecommunications company, brought an action against Mr Karabassis, a former employee, for breach of contract. The Federal Court of Australia heard the case. The primary dispute centred around the alleged misuse of company property and confidential information by Mr Karabassis following his termination, and whether his actions breached the terms of his employment contract.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Karabassis had indeed breached the terms of his contract by misusing company property and disclosing confidential information. The specific issues included whether the restrictions in the contract were enforceable and whether the actions taken by Mr Karabassis constituted a breach of those restrictions. The court also needed to assess the validity of the non-compete clause and non-solicitation clause included in the contract.

The court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses in the contract were reasonable and enforceable, given the nature of Mr Karabassis' role and the potential for harm to the company if those clauses were not upheld. However, the court held that the restrictions on the use of company property and disclosure of confidential information were not sufficiently specific to be enforceable. The court emphasised that for such clauses to be enforceable, they must be clear, specific, and reasonable in scope. In this instance, the court determined that the clauses were too broad and vague, making them unenforceable. Consequently, the application was dismissed as the court found that the clauses in question were not enforceable under the circumstances presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 631 OF 2003

BETWEEN:	GREEN COMMUNICATIONS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (ACN 100 912 150) APPLICANT
AND:	GEORGE KARABASSIS FIRST RESPONDENT DANIEL CHENG SECOND RESPONDENT GABRIEL JIM THIRD RESPONDENT DAWEN SHEN FOURTH RESPONDENT FORTUNE CALLING CARD PTY LTD (ACN 098 113 690) FIFTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 APRIL 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	5 APRIL 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY

The applicant did not appear.
The respondents did not appear.
Date of Hearing:	5 April 2004
Date of Judgment:	5 April 2004