Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd v Puri - [2016] NSWSC 150

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd v Puri [2016] NSWSC 150
Hearing dates: 23 February 2016
Decision date: 23 February 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List
Before: White J
Decision:
Refer to para [23] of judgment

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — applications for interlocutory injunction and transfer of proceedings — restraint of trade — parties contracted to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Victoria — proceedings could have been commenced in Victoria — in the interests of justice to transfer proceedings to the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to s 5(2) Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW) — claim for interlocutory injunction not heard or determined
Legislation Cited: Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Asciano Services Pty Ltd v Australian Rail Track Corp Ltd [2008] NSWSC 652
FAI General Insurance Co v Ocean Marine Mutual Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd (1997) 41 NSWLR 117
Texts Cited: Nygh’s Conflict of Laws in Australia 8th ed
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Rakesh Puri (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Alkadamani (Plaintiff)
M Seck (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Haywards Solicitors (Plaintiff)
CCI Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/42845

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: There is listed before me today two notices of motion. One is an application by the plaintiff for interlocutory injunctive relief to enforce covenants in restraint of trade. The other is an application by the defendant for a stay of the proceedings, or for the proceedings to be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
In June 2008 the defendant was employed by the plaintiff with the title Divisional-Manager Corporate Risks. His employment was terminated on 5 November 2015. The plaintiff carries on business as a risk advisory and insurance broking firm. It has offices throughout Australia, including Sydney and Melbourne. Clause 7.4(a) of the plaintiff's employment contract included a covenant that for a period of 12 months after cessation of his Engagement he would not directly or indirectly solicit, or seek to procure, orders of business from, or the custom of, any person, firm or company who during the 12 months immediately before the termination of his Engagement was a client with whom he had had dealings, or a prospective client with whom he had had dealings. Clause 7.4(b) provided that for a period of 12 months after cessation of his engagement the defendant would not "directly or indirectly do business with or for any such person, firm or company as is referred to in sub-clauses 7.4a(i) and (ii) above”.
The contract of employment recited that the plaintiff operates a general retail insurance broking and insurance services business throughout Australia. It names the defendant as the "Executive" and gives as his address an address in a suburb of Melbourne.
During the course of his employment the defendant worked with clients from the Melbourne office of the plaintiff. It is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd v Puri and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 150
Decision Date: 23 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pty Ltd versus Puri was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary dispute centred on the validity of an interlocutory injunction and the transfer of proceedings concerning an alleged restraint of trade. The contractual agreement between the parties stipulated that they would submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Victoria. Despite the proceedings being initiated in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the court was required to consider whether it was just and convenient to transfer the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court identified two principal legal issues. The first was whether the matter should be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria under section 5(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 (NSW). The second issue was whether it was appropriate to hear and determine the claim for an interlocutory injunction at that stage of the proceedings. The court considered the contractual jurisdictional clause and the principle of forum non conveniens in determining the appropriate forum for the dispute.

In deciding the jurisdictional question, the court noted that the contractual agreement clearly designated Victoria as the exclusive jurisdiction. It was established that the proceedings could have been commenced in Victoria, and the interests of justice favoured the transfer of the matter to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court concluded that it was not appropriate to hear or determine the claim for an interlocutory injunction at that juncture, as the matter should first be resolved in the appropriate forum. Consequently, the application for the transfer of proceedings was granted, and the claim for an interlocutory injunction was not heard or determined.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings be transferred to the Supreme Court of Victoria and that the claim for an interlocutory injunction was not to be heard or determined at that time. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to jurisdictional agreements and the principle of forum non conveniens in complex litigation matters.

Orders