Raine & Horne Pty Limited v Adacol Pty Limited

Raine & Horne Pty Limited sought interlocutory injunctive relief against Adacol Pty Limited, seeking to restrain Adacol from competing with Raine & Horne's franchise business following the termination of a franchise agreement. The dispute arose after Raine & Horne terminated the agreement due to Adacol's alleged breach, leading to this application in the Federal Court of Australia. The central legal issues involved the validity of a restraint of trade clause in the franchise agreement, the applicability of the "brass plate" doctrine, and whether an injunction was necessary to protect Raine & Horne's legitimate business interests.

The court considered the principles of restraint of trade, including the need to protect legitimate business interests without unduly restricting competition. The "brass plate" doctrine was examined, whereby a restraint may be enforced if it protects a business's goodwill or reputation. The court also weighed the adequacy of damages as a remedy and the balance of convenience. It concluded that the restraint was not void on public policy grounds, as it was necessary to protect Raine & Horne's identified legitimate interests. The restraint was not wider than necessary, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

Based on the above considerations, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining Adacol from competing with Raine & Horne in the specified territory and period. The final orders included provisions for Adacol to cease and desist from any activities that would infringe upon Raine & Horne's franchise rights, pending the final determination of the case.