IceTV v Ross

The case of IceTV v Ross involved the dispute between IceTV, an Australian media technology company, and two of its former employees, Ross and another individual who were the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Technical Officer (CTO) respectively. The crux of the dispute was whether certain clauses in the restraint of trade provisions in the employees' employment contracts were enforceable. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation and enforceability of the restraint of trade clauses. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the "business" of IceTV, as carried on in the twelve months prior to the termination of employment, included a line of business which IceTV intended and was exploring opportunities to pursue but had not yet commercialised. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the restraint on "soliciting" contravened when the initial approach was made by a customer, but the former employee then encouraged the customer. The validity of the restraint in terms of customer connection, reasonable scope, area, and duration were also examined. Furthermore, the court assessed the reasonableness of the restraint in the event of termination by IceTV otherwise than for cause.

The court found that the restraint of trade clauses were valid and enforceable. It held that the business of IceTV included a line of business which it intended to pursue but had not yet commercialised. The court also ruled that the restraint on soliciting did not contravene when the initial approach was made by a customer. The restraint was deemed to be reasonable in scope, area, and duration, and it was valid in terms of customer connection. The court further held that the restraint was reasonable in the event of termination by IceTV otherwise than for cause. The court also determined that an interlocutory injunction would practically determine the case, and that there was no prejudice from the delay in making the application.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining the former employees from engaging in activities that would breach the restraint of trade provisions. The injunction was to remain in force until the final determination of the case. The court's decision provided clarity on the enforceability of restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts, particularly in the context of media technology companies.