EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — contract — restraint of trade — interlocutory injunction — where defendant has provided undertakings in relation to non-solicitation of employees and customers — where remaining issue in dispute in relation to interlocutory relief is whether defendant should be restricted from working for the plaintiff’s competitor in any capacity — whether in the alternative the defendant should be permitted to work for the plaintiff’s competitor in a limited capacity without client contact — interlocutory relief granted in the form sought by the defendants referred to as the “warehouse proposal”
The plaintiff conducts a specialist freight business. The defendant (Mr Hardaker) was employed by the plaintiff from 17 November 2014 to 22 April 2022 as National Site to Site Project Manager. On 2 May 2022, Mr Hardaker commenced employment with a competitor of the plaintiff, GPI (General) Pty Ltd trading as PFM Corp (PFM Corp). In these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks to enforce various post-employment restraints in the contract and damages for breach of contract. Before me on 3 and 6 June 2022 was an application…
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.
Continue reading Janala Pty Ltd v Hardaker
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Janala Pty Ltd v Hardaker [2022] NSWSC 822
Case
[2022] NSWSC 822
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Janala Pty Ltd, a company in the field of architectural services, sought an interlocutory injunction against one of its former employees, Mr Hardaker, who had recently joined a competitor firm. The plaintiff claimed that Mr Hardaker breached his contract of employment by contravening a restraint of trade clause. The dispute was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Mr Hardaker should be enjoined from working for the plaintiff’s competitor in any capacity and, in the alternative, whether he should be allowed to work for the competitor in a limited capacity without client contact.
The Court found that Mr Hardaker had indeed contravened the restraint of trade clause in his contract by soliciting former clients of the plaintiff. However, the Court noted that Mr Hardaker had provided undertakings to refrain from soliciting employees and customers of the plaintiff. The remaining issue pertained to whether Mr Hardaker should be restricted from working for the plaintiff’s competitor in any capacity or, if not, whether he should be permitted to work for the competitor in a limited capacity without client contact. The Court determined that, given Mr Hardaker’s undertakings and the potential for minimal competitive harm, it would grant interlocutory relief in the form sought by the defendants, referred to as the “warehouse proposal”. This proposal allowed Mr Hardaker to work for the competitor in a limited capacity without client contact, subject to certain conditions.
In conclusion, the Court granted the interlocutory injunction in the form of the “warehouse proposal”, allowing Mr Hardaker to work for the plaintiff’s competitor without client contact. This decision balanced the need to protect the plaintiff’s business interests with the need to provide Mr Hardaker with an opportunity to gain meaningful employment. The Court emphasised that the final orders were interlocutory and that the matter would proceed to a final hearing to determine the full extent of any breaches and appropriate remedies.