Infinity Gym Sports and Health Pty Limited v Ageev

In this case, Infinity Gym Sports and Health Pty Limited, trading as Infinity Gym, sought to enforce a restraint of trade clause against its former employee, Mr Ageev. The dispute was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The clause in question prohibited Mr Ageev from working for a competitor of Infinity Gym for a period of 12 months after his employment ended. The primary legal issues revolved around the enforceability of the restraint clause, the balance of convenience, and the potential hardship to both parties if an injunction was granted or denied.

The court examined whether the restraint was reasonably necessary to protect Infinity Gym's legitimate business interests, considering the nature of Mr Ageev's role and his potential to cause harm to the business. It also considered the delay in bringing the application and the potential damage that Infinity Gym might suffer if the injunction was not granted. Furthermore, the court weighed the possible hardship to Mr Ageev if an injunction was granted, assessing whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court found that the restraint clause was not unreasonably broad and that it was necessary to protect Infinity Gym's legitimate business interests. It held that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction and that the delay in bringing the application did not necessarily undermine the strength of Infinity Gym's case. However, the court also recognised that Mr Ageev would face hardship if the injunction was granted, as it would significantly limit his ability to find employment in the fitness industry. Ultimately, the court concluded that the benefits to Infinity Gym of enforcing the restraint clause outweighed the hardship to Mr Ageev. The court granted an interim injunction, restraining Mr Ageev from working for a competitor until the final hearing of the matter.