Ord Minnett Holdings Pty Ltd v Longmuir

Ord Minnett Holdings Pty Ltd applied for an interlocutory injunction against Longmuir, its former employee, to restrain her from soliciting clients of the applicant and to restrain her from inducing other Ord Minnett staff to leave. The applicant relied on contractual restraints in Longmuir’s employment agreement. The restraint on soliciting clients was set to expire in two months, and the restraint on inducing other staff to leave was indefinite. The primary issue before the court was whether there was a serious question to be tried that Longmuir had breached the non-solicitation obligation and the prohibition on inducing other staff to leave, and if the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried that Longmuir had breached the non-solicitation obligation. Although some of the instances might be explained away after full evidence, the evidence showed that the applicant’s case went beyond suspicion and conjecture. The restraint was set to expire in two months, and there was no evidence that it was detrimental to Longmuir’s interests. Therefore, the balance of convenience clearly favoured the applicant. The court was not persuaded that the undertaking proffered on Longmuir’s behalf stood in the way of the grant of an injunction. However, the court did not find that there was a serious case to be tried that Longmuir had breached the prohibition on inducing other staff to leave, as the evidence of any such breach was scant.

The court granted the injunction to enforce Longmuir’s obligation not to solicit clients but did not determine the restraint on inducing other staff to leave. The court also prohibited the publication or other disclosure of certain annexures to affidavits on the ground set out in s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The costs of the interlocutory application were reserved.