Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd v Angel-Honnibal

In the case of Idameneo (No 123) Pty Ltd v Angel-Honnibal, the plaintiff, a company that had purchased the defendant's medical practice, sought to enforce a restraint of trade clause in an agreement between the parties. The defendant was required to operate the practice from the plaintiff's medical centre and not to compete with it within a specified area. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the restraint of trade clause constituted a "brass plate covenant," and if so, what the onus of proof was regarding the reasonableness of the restraint. The court was also required to consider the quantum of evidence needed to establish the reasonableness of the restraint and the applicability of liquidated damages under the Restraints of Trade Act. The court had to determine whether the onus of proof regarding the reasonableness of the restraint lay with the plaintiff or the defendant.

The court found that the restraint of trade clause did not amount to a "brass plate covenant," as it was limited in both time and geographical scope. The court emphasised that the onus of proof regarding the reasonableness of the restraint fell on the party seeking to enforce the clause, in this case, the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the restraint was reasonable. The court further found that the liquidated damages clause was not enforceable as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The court ordered that the restraint of trade clause and the liquidated damages clause were unenforceable.