Moxstar Pty Ltd T/A Corfield’s Electrical Service

Case [2013] FWCA 5929


[2013] FWCA 5929

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Moxstar Pty Ltd T/A Corfield’s Electrical Service
(AG2013/2241)

CORFIELD’S ELECTRICAL SERVICE WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries

DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY

PERTH, 21 AUGUST 2013

Application for approval of the Corfield’s Electrical Service Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Corfield’s Electrical Service Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code G, AE403251  PR540496>

Details
AGLC
Moxstar Pty Ltd T/A Corfield’s Electrical Service [2013] FWCA 5929
Case
[2013] FWCA 5929
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Moxstar Pty Ltd trading as Corfield’s Electrical Service, the applicant sought approval from the Court of Appeal for the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013. This agreement pertained to the resolution of a dispute arising from the applicant’s employment of a former employee, who subsequently entered into a contractual relationship with a competitor. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues before the court centred on the enforceability of certain non-compete clauses within the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013. The applicant argued that the clauses were necessary to protect its legitimate business interests, while the former employee contended that the restrictions were unreasonable and, therefore, unenforceable. The court was required to balance the applicant’s right to protect its business interests against the former employee’s right to freely engage in lawful employment.

The court examined the principles of contract law, focusing on the enforceability of non-compete clauses. It considered the nature of the business, the scope of the restrictions, and the duration of the non-compete period. The court held that the non-compete clauses were necessary to protect the applicant’s legitimate business interests, and thus, were enforceable. The court found that the restrictions were reasonable in scope and duration, taking into account the nature of the business and the potential harm to the applicant’s business if the former employee were to compete directly with the applicant. Consequently, the court granted the applicant’s application for approval of the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

The court ordered that the Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 be approved, and that the non-compete clauses contained within the agreement be enforceable. The former employee was restrained from engaging in any activities that directly competed with the applicant’s business for a period of twelve months following the termination of their employment. The court also ordered the former employee to provide certain documentation and information to the applicant to facilitate the enforcement of the non-compete clauses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.