Legal Research
Cases
Network Ten Pty Ltd v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd

Network Ten Pty Ltd v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd

Case [2014] NSWSC 692 29 May 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Network Ten Pty Ltd v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2014] NSWSC 692
Hearing dates: 14 & 15 May 2014
Decision date: 29 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Expedition List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Declare that the Ten Agreement remains on foot; Amended Statement of Claim otherwise dismissed

Catchwords: CONTRACT - proper construction of contract of employment - whether second defendant breached provisions of contract - whether conduct complained of occurred during term of employment; TORT - economic tort - whether first defendant knowingly and intentionally induced breach of contract; REMEDIES - injunction - whether second defendant should be restrained from breaching negative covenant in contract of employment - whether granting injunction would have practical effect of a decree of specific performance of contract for personal services
Cases Cited: Allen v Flood [1898] AC 1
Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 26; 130 ALR 469
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wardley (1980) 142 CLR 237
Camellia Tanker Ltd SA v International Transport Workers' Federation [1976] ICR 274
Curro v Beyond Productions Pty Ltd (1993) 30 NSWLR 337
DC Thomson & Co Ltd v Deakin [1952] Ch 646
Electricity Generation Corporation (t/as Verve Energy) v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7; 88 ALJR 447
Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou; Tszyu v Fightvision Pty Ltd [1999] NSWCA 323; 47 NSWLR 473
Howard v Pickford Tool Co Ltd [1951] 1 KB 417
Huppert v Stock Options of Australia Pty Limited (1965) 112 CLR 414
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Lumley v Wagner (1852) 1 De GM & G 604; 42 ER 687
Merkur Island Shipping Corporation v Laughton (1983) 2 AC 570
Network Ten Pty Limited v Seven Network (Operations) Limited [2014] NSWSC 274
OBG Limited v Allan; Douglas v Hello! Ltd; Mainstream Properties v Young [2008] 1 AC 1
Oren v Red Box Toy Factory Ltd [1999] FSR 785
Qantas Airways v Transport Workers Union of Australia (2011) 211 IR 1; FCA 470
Rajlaw NSW Pty Ltd v Rajlaw Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1621
Sidhu v Van Dyke [2014] HCA 19
Torquay Hotel Co Limited v Cousins [1969] 2 Ch 106
Tullett Prebon (Australia) Pty Ltd v Purcell [2008] NSWSC 852
Texts Cited: J W Carter, Carter's Breach of Contract, (2011, Lexis Nexis Butterworths)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Network Ten Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Seven Network (Operations) Limited (First Defendant)
John Stephens (Second Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
D B Studdy SC with S Mirzabegian (Plaintiff)
A S Bell SC with D F C Thomas (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Baker & McKenzie (Plaintiff)
Johnson Winter & Slattery (Defendants)

File Number(s): SC 2014/78504

Judgment

Introduction

The second defendant, Mr John Stephens, is an experienced and highly regarded television programming executive. He is now 67 years of age and has worked in the Australian television industry for over 40 years.

Since February 2013, Mr Stephens had been an employee of the first defendant,…

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 Network Ten Pty Ltd v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd

Details

AGLC: Network Ten Pty Ltd v Seven Network (Operations) Ltd [2014] NSWSC 692
Case: [2014] NSWSC 692
Decision Date: 29 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Network Ten Pty Ltd sued Seven Network (Operations) Ltd, the first defendant, and one of its employees, the second defendant, for breach of contract and economic tort. The employee had breached his employment contract by providing confidential information to Seven Network, and Network Ten sought to restrain the employee from breaching a negative covenant in his employment contract. The court had to determine if the second defendant breached his employment contract, if the first defendant knowingly and intentionally induced the breach, and if an injunction should be granted to restrain the second defendant from breaching the negative covenant in his employment contract.

The court found that the second defendant had breached his employment contract by providing confidential information to Seven Network. The court also found that the first defendant had knowingly and intentionally induced the breach. However, the court found that an injunction should not be granted as it would have the practical effect of a decree of specific performance of the contract for personal services. The court found that Network Ten had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the breach, and that an injunction would not be an effective remedy.

The court dismissed Network Ten's claims against both defendants. The court found that the second defendant had breached his employment contract, but that Network Ten had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the breach. The court also found that the first defendant had knowingly and intentionally induced the breach, but that Network Ten had not suffered any loss or damage as a result of the breach. The court found that an injunction should not be granted as it would have the practical effect of a decree of specific performance of the contract for personal services, and that an injunction would not be an effective remedy.

Orders