Jardin v Metcash Ltd

The case of *Jardin v Metcash Ltd* concerned a dispute arising from an employment agreement and a subsequent deed of release. The appellant, Mr Jardin, had entered into a deed of release with Metcash Ltd and related entities. Mr Jardin sought to terminate his employment by giving three months' notice, contending that a restraint of trade clause within his employment agreement continued to apply. Metcash Ltd argued that the deed of release had altered the terms of the employment relationship and that the restraint of trade clause was no longer enforceable.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the deed of release extinguished Mr Jardin's right to terminate his employment by giving three months' notice, and consequently, whether the restraint of trade clause remained operative. The court was also required to consider the enforceability of the restraint of trade clauses themselves, and whether injunctive relief could be granted against a company not directly bound by those covenants, potentially under the "springboard" doctrine, and whether such relief could extend beyond the contractual period of restraint. Furthermore, the court addressed procedural matters concerning the grant of leave to appeal and cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined that the deed of release did not operate to terminate the employment contract itself, but rather modified the terms of the employment relationship. The court found that the restraint of trade clause remained enforceable, distinguishing between the termination of the employment relationship and the termination of the employment contract. The court also considered the reasonableness of the restraint of trade clauses and the basis for injunctive relief.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal. However, the appeal brought by Mr Jardin was dismissed, while the cross-appeal by Metcash Ltd was allowed. Consequently, an earlier order made by Ball J was set aside, and Mr Jardin was ordered to pay Metcash Ltd's costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.