LiveBetter Services Ltd v Quarmby - [2020] NSWSC 7

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LiveBetter Services Ltd v Quarmby [2020] NSWSC 7
Hearing dates: 10 January 2020
Decision date: 16 January 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Robb J
Decision:
See [103]

Catchwords:
EQUITY — equitable remedies — injunctions — Interlocutory injunction — where first defendant a former employee of the plaintiff which is a not-for-profit company offering disability services to customers — where first defendant established the second defendant through which to conduct a business that offers disability services to customers — plaintiff alleges first defendant in breach of confidentiality clause and restraint of trade clause in former employment contract — prima facie case established — balance of convenience — consideration of the impact of an injunction on third parties — not appropriate at the present time to grant injunctive relief
RESTRAINT OF TRADE — general principles governing enforcement of restraint of trade provisions — whether the alleged breach infringes the terms of the restraint — where restraint of trade clause has no temporal or geographical limitation
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 181, 182, 183
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 75
Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW), s 4
Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46
Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172; (2007) 165 IR 148
Isaac v Dargan Financial Pty Ltd (2018) 98 NSWLR 343; [2018] NSWCA 163
National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corp Pty Ltd [2009] 1 WLR 1405
Robb v Green [1895] 2 QB 315
Scruples Imports Pty Ltd v Crabtree & Evelyn Pty Ltd (1983) 1 IPR 315
X v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 200 CLR 177; [1999] HCA 63
Texts Cited: J D Heydon, M J Leeming and P G Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane’s Equity Doctrines & Remedies (5th ed, 2015, LexisNexis Butterworths)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: LiveBetter Services Ltd (plaintiff)
Ryan Quarmby (first defendant)
New Directions Disability Services Ltd (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Easton (plaintiff)
N Olson (defendants)
Solicitors:
Kardos Scanlan Lawyers (plaintiff)
Mercantile Legal (defendants)

File Number(s): 2019/408737
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The parties

The plaintiff is LiveBetter Services Ltd (LiveBetter), which is a registered National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider of a diverse range of services including disability support services, aged care, respite care, childcare, home and community care and clinical services.
LiveBetter is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and is also a registered charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission.
The evidence is that LiveBetter employs approximately 1700 employees in about 60 sites across Australia, predominantly in New South Wales. LiveBetter's head office is located in Orange, New South Wales.
LiveBetter's activities in the southern region of New South Wales commenced in 2016 by way of mergers with other businesses in the disability sector. The head office for LiveBetter's activities in the southern region of New South Wales is located at Wagga Wagga.
LiveBetter controls a number…

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 LiveBetter Services Ltd v Quarmby

Details

AGLC: LiveBetter Services Ltd v Quarmby [2020] NSWSC 7
Case: [2020] NSWSC 7
Decision Date: 16 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, LiveBetter Services Ltd initiated proceedings against Quarmby, seeking injunctive relief against both Quarmby and a company established by Quarmby. LiveBetter Services Ltd is a not-for-profit organisation providing disability services, and Quarmby was a former employee. LiveBetter alleged that Quarmby breached confidentiality and restraint of trade clauses in his employment contract by establishing a competing business through the second defendant. The plaintiff argued that Quarmby used confidential information from LiveBetter to establish a similar business, infringing on his restraint of trade obligations.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for breach of the confidentiality and restraint of trade clauses and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted. The court considered the nature of the alleged breach, the enforceability of the restraint of trade clause, and the impact of any injunctive relief on third parties. The restraint of trade clause in question had no temporal or geographical limitations, raising concerns about its enforceability.

The court found that LiveBetter had established a prima facie case for breach of the confidentiality and restraint of trade clauses. However, it concluded that an interlocutory injunction was not appropriate at that time. The court considered the balance of convenience and the potential impact on third parties, including LiveBetter’s customers. Given the nature of the business and the lack of temporal or geographical limitations in the restraint of trade clause, the court determined that it was not appropriate to grant injunctive relief at that stage of the proceedings. The court left the matter open for further consideration if the case proceeded to trial.

Orders