Hankinson as Executrix of the Estate of Gary William Same v Brookview Holdings Pty Ltd

The parties involved in this case are Hankinson, the executrix of the estate of Gary William Same, and Brookview Holdings Pty Ltd. The dispute revolves around a restraint of trade covenant, specifically whether damages for loss of business caused by the breach of this covenant were properly calculated. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The executrix claimed damages for loss of business due to Brookview Holdings Pty Ltd, the vendor of a video store business, operating a competing video store in breach of a covenant against competition within a defined area for two years. Brookview Holdings Pty Ltd contested the reasonableness of the restraint, the geographical scope of the restraint, the method of assessing damages, and the claim for interest.

The legal issues before the court included the reasonableness of the restraint of trade covenant, the geographical area covered by the covenant, the proper assessment of damages for loss of business, and the entitlement to interest on the damages awarded. The court had to determine whether the restraint was reasonable in the circumstances and if the damages awarded were appropriate. It also needed to consider whether interest should be added to the damages awarded.

The court found that the restraint was reasonable in its terms and scope, considering the nature of the business and the competitive environment. However, the court determined that the damages awarded were excessive and not supported by the evidence. The court also held that interest should not be added to the damages. The executrix's failure to object to the admissibility of certain evidence contributed to the court's decision regarding the damages. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the damages awarded and disallowing the claim for interest.

The final orders of the court reduced the amount of damages awarded to the executrix and disallowed the claim for interest on those damages. The court's decision underscores the importance of the reasonableness of restraints of trade and the necessity for accurate and well-supported evidence when claiming damages for their breach.