Perpetual Limited v Maglis

Case [2025] QSC 71

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Perpetual Limited v Maglis [2025] QSC 71

PARTIES:

PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827)

(First Applicant)
And
PERPETUAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED (ACN 000 001 007)
(Second Applicant)

v

CONSTANTINE MAGLIS

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 812 of 2025

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 April 2025

JUDGE:

Bowskill CJ

ORDERS:

1.        The application for interlocutory relief, paragraphs 2 to 6 of the originating application filed on 21 March 2025, is dismissed.

2.        The second confidential affidavit of Mr Baker, affirmed 21 March 2025 and filed on 2 April 2025, is to be placed in a sealed envelope on the Court file marked ‘not to be opened other than by order of the Court’.

3.        The second affidavit of Mr Lunn, sworn 31 March 2025, and filed on 2 April 2025, is to be placed in a sealed envelope on the Court file marked ‘not to be opened other than by order of the Court’.

4.        I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – where the applicants allege that a non-solicitation clause is binding and enforceable against the respondent, a former employee of the first applicant who was employed as a financial adviser for clients of the second applicant – where the applicants seek interlocutory relief to prevent the respondent from contacting, or accepting approaches from, clients – where a number of clients have already requested to transfer their accounts from the applicants to the respondent’s new employer – whether the applicants have shown a prima facie case that the restraint is reasonable and therefore valid and enforceable, and that the respondent has, or threatens to, breach the restraint – whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of injunctive relief, including having regard to the interests of third parties, namely, the clients

2nd Chapter Pty Ltd v Sealey [2023] VSC 599, cited
2nd Chapter Pty Ltd v Sealey [2024] VSC 672, cited
AECI Australia Pty Ltd v Convey [2020] QSC 207, cited
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46, cited
Avant Group Pty Ltd v Kiddle (2023) 325 IR 292, applied
Emeco International Pty Ltd v O’Shea (No 2) (2012) 225 IR 423; [2012] WASC 348, cited
Findex Group Ltd v McKay [2020] FCAFC 182, cited
Ice TV v Ross [2007] NSWSC 635, cited
Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162; [2016] VSCA 334, considered
Koops Martin v Reeves [2006] NSWSC 449, cited
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 30, cited
Popham Holdings Pty Ltd v Franklin [2016] VSC 597, cited
Russ Australia Pty Ltd v Benny [2006] NSWSC 1118, cited
Wallis Nominees (Computing) Pty Ltd v Pickett (2013) 45 VR 657; [2012] VSCA 24, considered
Warner-Lambert…

Continue reading Perpetual Limited v Maglis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Perpetual Limited v Maglis [2025] QSC 71
Case
[2025] QSC 71
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Perpetual Limited and Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited brought an action against Maglis, a former employee who worked as a financial adviser. The applicants sought interlocutory relief to prevent Maglis from contacting clients or accepting approaches from them, on the basis of a non-solicitation clause in his employment contract. Several clients had already requested to transfer their accounts from the applicants to Maglis’s new employer. The court was required to determine if the restraint was reasonable, valid, and enforceable, and if Maglis had breached or threatened to breach the restraint. The balance of convenience was also considered, taking into account the interests of third parties, the clients.

The applicants argued that the non-solicitation clause was reasonable and necessary to protect their legitimate business interests. They contended that the clause was for a period of 12 months and geographically limited to a specific area. The applicants also claimed that Maglis had already breached the restraint by contacting clients and attempting to induce them to transfer their accounts. However, the court found that the applicants had not made out a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory relief. The court held that the applicants had not shown that the restraint was reasonable in all the circumstances. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of injunctive relief, having regard to the interests of third parties, the clients.

The interlocutory application was dismissed, and the court ordered that certain affidavits be placed in sealed envelopes on the Court file, not to be opened except by order of the Court. The court also indicated that it would hear the parties on the question of costs. This decision highlights the importance of employers ensuring that any restraint of trade clauses in employment contracts are reasonable and necessary to protect legitimate business interests. Employers must also consider the interests of third parties, such as clients, when seeking interlocutory relief.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for interlocutory relief, paragraphs 2 to 6 of the originating application filed on 21 March 2025, is dismissed.

2. The second confidential affidavit of Mr Baker, affirmed 21 March 2025 and filed on 2 April 2025, is to be placed in a sealed envelope on the Court file marked ‘not to be opened other than by order of the Court’.

3. The second affidavit of Mr Lunn, sworn 31 March 2025, and filed on 2 April 2025, is to be placed in a sealed envelope on the Court file marked ‘not to be opened other than by order of the Court’.

4. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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.