Legal Research
Cases
Reed Business Information v Seymour

Reed Business Information v Seymour

Link copied

Case Copied 23 July 2010 48 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Reed Business Information v Seymour [2010] NSWSC 790

HEARING DATE(S): 13 and 15 July 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 July 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Ball J

DECISION: Upon the defendant giving the usual undertaking as to damages, the court orders that:
1. Until further order the defendant be restrained from disclosing to any person or using for her own personal gain or benefit any of the following information:
(a) Any advertising rates for the plaintiff’s publications known as 6minutes, Pharmacy News and Australian Doctor (the Publications”)”;
(b) Any statistics relating to circulation or readership of any of the Publications;
(c) The plaintiff’s business strategies for the Publications;
(d) Information contained in sales sheets, brand plans or client proposals or presentations prepared by the plaintiff;
(e) Any market research data acquired by the plaintiff; and/or
(f) Training and educational material prepared by the plaintiff,
except to the extent that that information is available in the public domain or is obtained by the defendant other than in the course of, or as a result of, her employment with the plaintiff.
2. Until further order or 7 May 2011, whichever is the earlier, the defendant be restrained from performing any services for the publication of UBM Medica Australia Limited known as Medical Observer, such restraint to include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Approaching any advertiser (including S4 and non-S4 advertisers) on behalf of, or ostensibly on behalf of, Medical Observer; and,
(b) Attending any meeting (either alone or on behalf of UBM Medica Australia Limited or in company with any other employee or agent of that company) at which advertising in Medical Observer is discussed.
3. Until further order of the Court:
(a) The USB stick upon which the defendant has copied confidential information belonging to the plaintiff be retained by the solicitor for the defendant; and
(b) The defendant be restrained from accessing the information contained on the subject USB stick.
4. Matter listed before the Registrar in Equity at 9.00 am on 29 July 2010 for further directions.
5. Order that the costs of the Plaintiff’s application for interlocutory relief be reserved.
6. Liberty to apply on three (3) days notice limited to the question of any application that the proceedings, in their entirety, be referred to mediation.
7. Direct that the above orders be entered forthwith.

CATCHWORDS: INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS - Balance of convenience - hardship caused by order preventing defendant from working - strength of case required in circumstances where interlocutory relief is likely to dispose of matter. RESTRAINTS OF TRADE - non-compete clause - interpretation - reasonableness - confidentiality - whether new employer should be joined as party

LEGISLATION CITED: Restraints of Trade Act, 1976 (NSW)
Therapeutic Goods Administration Regulation

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co v Product Star Shipping Ltd [1992] 2 All ER 20
Adamastos Shipping Co Ltd v Anglo Saxon Petroleum Co Ltd [1959] AC 133
Antaios Compania Naviera SA v Salen Rederierna AB [1985] AC 191
Associated Newspapers…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reed Business Information v Seymour and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 790
Decision Date: 23 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reed Business Information v Seymour was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. The plaintiff, Reed Business Information, sought an interlocutory injunction and restraint of trade against the defendant, Seymour, who had resigned from his position as the plaintiff's employee and accepted a position with a competitor. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's employment contract contained a non-compete clause which was enforceable, and sought an order preventing the defendant from working for the competitor until the matter was resolved. The defendant argued that the non-compete clause was unreasonable and unenforceable, and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the necessary balance of convenience to grant the injunction.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction, and whether the non-compete clause was reasonable and enforceable. The court also had to consider whether the new employer should be joined as a party to the proceedings.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated the necessary balance of convenience to grant the interlocutory injunction, as the hardship caused to the defendant by preventing him from working outweighed any inconvenience caused to the plaintiff. The court also found that the non-compete clause was reasonable and enforceable, but that it did not extend to preventing the defendant from working for the new employer. The court declined to join the new employer as a party to the proceedings, as it was not necessary to do so in order to resolve the matter. The plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction was therefore dismissed.

Orders