Metcash Ltd v Jardim (No 3)

Metcash Limited sued Mr Jardim and his company, 2700000 Pty Ltd, for breach of contract and to enforce a restraint of trade clause. The dispute arose from Mr Jardim's employment, which ended when Metcash terminated it. Metcash claimed that Mr Jardim was not entitled to terminate by giving three months' notice, and that the restraint of trade clause was enforceable despite the incorporation of 2700000 Pty Ltd. Metcash sought injunctive relief to prevent Mr Jardim from working with competitors and to stop 2700000 Pty Ltd from engaging in certain activities. The court had to determine whether Mr Jardim was entitled to terminate his employment by giving three months' notice, whether the restraint of trade clause was enforceable, and whether the court should grant the injunctive relief sought by Metcash.

The court considered the contractual terms and the relevant authorities to determine whether Mr Jardim was entitled to terminate his employment by giving three months' notice. The court found that the contract allowed Mr Jardim to terminate by giving three months' notice, and that Metcash's argument was without merit. The court also considered whether the restraint of trade clause was enforceable despite the incorporation of 2700000 Pty Ltd. The court found that the clause was not enforceable against 2700000 Pty Ltd, but that it was enforceable against Mr Jardim. Finally, the court considered whether to grant the injunctive relief sought by Metcash. The court found that the effect of the injunction on third parties was relevant and that, in this case, the injunction should not be granted.

Metcash's claim for breach of contract was dismissed, and its claim for injunctive relief was also dismissed. The restraint of trade clause was found to be enforceable against Mr Jardim but not against 2700000 Pty Ltd. The court did not make any orders as to costs.