Helensburgh Property Management Pty Ltd v Brady - [2016] NSWSC 253

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Helensburgh Property Management Pty Ltd v Brady [2016] NSWSC 253
Hearing dates: 11, 12, 16 February 2016
Decision date: 17 March 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Bergin CJ in Eq
Decision:
The plaintiff is entitled to the entry of judgment against the first defendant in the amount of $33,740.

Catchwords: DAMAGES – where the defendant in breach of contract in poaching clients during and after employment with plaintiff – whether plaintiff entitled to damages assessed on basis of diminution in value of rent roll – whether clients would have left the plaintiff irrespective of defendant’s breach – assessment on basis of lost commissions
Cases Cited: AMP Services Ltd v Manning [2006] FCA 256
AMP Services Ltd v Manning (No 2) [2007] FCA 82
Commonwealth v Amman Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553
Helensburgh Property Management Pty Limited v Brady [2015] NSWSC 1861
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Robinson v Harman [1848] 1 ER 135
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McNeill [2006] NSWCA 158
Southern Real Estate Pty Ltd v Dellow and Arnold [2003] SASC 318; (2003) 87 SASR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Helensburgh Property Management Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Emma Elizabeth Brady (First Defendant)
All Over Rentals Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Hale SC/J Gatland (Plaintiff)
RA Parsons (1st and 2nd Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solari & Stock (Plaintiff)
Martin & Holmes Legal (1st and 2nd Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/328622
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

In the trial on liability the plaintiff, Helensburgh Property Management Pty Ltd, was successful in establishing that the defendant, Emma Elizabeth Brady, had breached the terms of her employment contract (the Contract) with the plaintiff, including acting in breach of her implied duty of loyalty and good faith in using the plaintiff’s confidential information other than in the performance of her duties; and by poaching the plaintiff’s clients both during and immediately after her employment with the plaintiff: Helensburgh Property Management Pty Limited v Brady [2015] NSWSC 1861 (the Judgment).
The Judgment dealt only with the issue of liability, the hearing in respect of which took place on 3 and 4 December 2015. These reasons, which should be read with the Judgment, relate to the issue of the plaintiff’s entitlement to damages for the breaches of the Contract. The hearing on this issue occurred on 11, 12 and 16 February 2016 when Ms J Gatland, of counsel, appeared for the plaintiff (with Mr T Hale SC on 16 February 2016) and Mr RA Parsons, of counsel, appeared for the defendant. Although the defendant’s company, All Over Rentals Pty Ltd (All Over Rentals), was the second defendant, the plaintiff accepted that no claim for damages can be made against it (tr 112). Although it sought to resile from this position I am satisfied the acceptance was appropriate having regard to the failure to plead any relevant cause of action against All Over Rentals. The plaintiff’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Helensburgh Property Management Pty Ltd v Brady and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 253
Decision Date: 17 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Helensburgh Property Management Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, and Brady, the defendant, who had been employed by the plaintiff to manage its properties. The dispute centred on the defendant's actions in poaching clients from the plaintiff during and after his employment. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for the defendant's breach of contract, claiming that the value of the rent roll had diminished due to the loss of clients. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages based on the diminution in value of the rent roll or whether the assessment should be based on lost commissions, considering the possibility that the clients might have left the plaintiff regardless of the defendant's actions.

The court examined the nature of the defendant's breach and its impact on the plaintiff's business. The defendant's actions were found to constitute a breach of the non-compete clause in his employment contract. The court considered the specific terms of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the breach. In assessing the damages, the court found that the appropriate measure was the lost commissions, rather than the diminution in the value of the rent roll. This was because the court could not ascertain whether the clients would have left the plaintiff irrespective of the defendant's actions. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages based on the commissions lost due to the defendant's breach of contract.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that damages should compensate the plaintiff for the actual loss suffered due to the breach. In this case, the lost commissions represented the direct financial loss incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's actions. The court determined that the lost commissions were the most reliable and direct measure of the plaintiff's loss, as opposed to the more speculative assessment based on the diminution in the value of the rent roll. The final orders of the court reflected this reasoning, awarding the plaintiff damages based on the lost commissions resulting from the defendant's breach of contract.

Orders