Legal Research
Cases
Pet Tech Pty Ltd v Batson

Pet Tech Pty Ltd v Batson

Case [2013] NSWSC 1954 20 December 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pet Tech Pty Ltd v Batson [2013] NSWSC 1954
Hearing dates: 29 October 2013
Decision date: 20 December 2013
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Young AJ
Decision:
Statement of Claim dismissed

Catchwords:
CONTRACTS - Construction - Clause reversing onus of proof - Whether clause valid - Whether clause an ouster of court's jurisdiction.
EMPLOYMENT - Restraint of trade - Confidential Information - Where plaintiff's evidence lacks specificity - Where confidential information not identified
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Bond v Rees Corporate Advisory Pty Ltd [2013] VSCA 13
Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd v Peters [2006] NSWSC 717; (2006) 71 NSWLR 9
Corrs Pavey Whiting & Byrne v Collector of Customs (Vic) (1987) 14 FCR 434
Czarnikow & Co Ltd v Roth Schmidt & Co [1922] 2 KB 478
Dobbs v The National Bank of Australasia Ltd [1935] HCA 49; (1935) 53 CLR 643
General Billposting Company Ltd v Atkinson [1909] AC 118
Ex parte Young; In Re Kitchin (1881) 17 Ch D 668
Globex Foreign Exchange Corporation v Kelcher McLean (2011) 337 DLR (4th) 207
Hammerax Hi-Tech Pty Ltd v O'Donnell [2001] NSWSC 634
Kaufman v McGillicuddy (1914) 19 CLR 1
Novamaze Pty Ltd v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd (1995) 128 ALR 540
Shomat Pty Ltd v Rubinstein (1995) 124 FLR 284
Texts Cited: Francis Dawson, "Survival of Restraint of Trade Clauses" (2013) 129 Law Quarterly Review 508
GL Williams, Joint Obligations
(Butterworths, 1949)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Pet Tech Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
David Batson (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
LR Young (Plaintiff)
Y Shariff (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Emil Ford Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Holding Redlich (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/270501
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The defendant was employed by the plaintiff between 16 November 2009 and 30 September 2011. On or about 10 November 2009, the parties entered into an agreement on the terms set out in the offer of employment dated 9 November 2009. This was referred to in evidence as the employment contract. It was a term of the employment contract that an Employee Intellectual Property Agreement, called by counsel in addresses an "EIPA" be executed and the defendant executed such a document on 10 December 2009. The plaintiff had issued a Statement of Claim on 30 August 2012 which sought: (1) an injunction restraining the defendant from using any confidential information belonging to the plaintiff; (2) an order for the defendant to deliver up any copies of the plaintiff's confidential information; (3) an order restraining the defendant from working with a named competitor; (4) damages; and (5) costs.

The EIPA is a very strange document which so far as relevant reads as follows:

I, the undersigned employee, agree as follows for the benefit of JobReady Solutions Inc., its parents, subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively "JobReady Solutions"):

1. Confidentiality I agree that information that is not generally known to the public to which I have been or will be exposed as a result of my being employed by JobReady Solutions…

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 Pet Tech Pty Ltd v Batson

Details

AGLC: Pet Tech Pty Ltd v Batson [2013] NSWSC 1954
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1954
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pet Tech Pty Ltd v Batson was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. Pet Tech Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought relief against Batson, the defendant, who had allegedly breached a restraint of trade clause and misused confidential information. Pet Tech Pty Ltd sought an injunction, damages, and an account of profits. The central dispute revolved around the validity of a clause in their employment contract that reversed the onus of proof and whether it constituted an improper ouster of the court's jurisdiction. Additionally, the court had to determine the specifics of the confidential information allegedly misused by Batson, as well as the enforceability of the restraint of trade clause in light of Pet Tech Pty Ltd's failure to provide detailed evidence.

The legal issues before the court included the enforceability of the onus of proof reversal clause and whether it was an improper limitation of the court's jurisdiction. Additionally, the court had to assess the specificity of the confidential information claimed to have been misused by Batson and whether Pet Tech Pty Ltd had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims. The enforceability of the restraint of trade clause was also in question, particularly given the lack of specificity in Pet Tech Pty Ltd's evidence regarding the confidential information.

The court found that the onus of proof reversal clause was not an improper limitation of the court's jurisdiction but did impose a heavy burden on the plaintiff. However, Pet Tech Pty Ltd failed to meet this burden as their evidence lacked specificity regarding the confidential information and the nature of the restraint of trade. Consequently, the court dismissed the claims for an injunction, damages, and an account of profits. The court held that without clearer and more detailed evidence from Pet Tech Pty Ltd, it could not enforce the restraint of trade clause or determine that Batson had misused any confidential information.

Orders