Smith v Nomad Modular Building Pty Ltd

[2007] WASCA 169

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT  :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION:   SMITH -v- NOMAD MODULAR BUILDING PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 169

CORAM:   McLURE JA

PULLIN JA
BUSS JA

HEARD:   21 JUNE 2007

DELIVERED          :   13 AUGUST 2007

FILE NO/S:   CACV 83 of 2007

BETWEEN:   NEVILLE EDGAR SMITH

Appellant

AND

NOMAD MODULAR BUILDING PTY LTD (ACN 071 271 826)
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram  :MASTER SANDERSON

Citation  :NOMAD MODULAR BUILDING PTY LTD -v- SMITH [2007] WASC 117

File No  :CIV 1361 of 2007

Catchwords:

Restraint of trade - Employment contract - Non­completion clause - Confidential information - Employee resigning - Seeking to work for former employer's competitor - Injunction to restrain such employment - Whether restraint reasonable

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category:    B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant:     Mr C G Colvin SC

Respondent:     Mr M D Howard

Solicitors:

Appellant:     Jackson McDonald

Respondent:     DLA Phillips Fox

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288

Brightman v Lamson Paragon Ltd (1914) 18 CLR 331

Buckley v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353

Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd v Peters [2006] NSWSC 717

Haynes v Doman [1899] 2 Ch 13

Heron v Port Huon Fruit‑Growers Co‑operative Association Ltd (1922) 30 CLR 315

Lindner v Murdock's Garage (1950) 83 CLR 628

McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579

Nordenfelt v The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535

Portal Software International Pty Ltd v Bodsworth (2005) NSWSC 1179

Putsman v Taylor [1927] 1 KB 637

Sir W C Leng & Co Ltd v Andrews [1909] 1 Ch 763

Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd (2004) 219 CLR 165

1. McLURE JA:  The Court dismissed this appeal on 11 July 2007.  These are my reasons for joining in that decision.  The facts are set out in the reasons for judgment of Pullin JA and not repeated here unless required for an understanding of these reasons. 

2. The appellant terminated his employment with the respondent to take up a position with its competitor.  The respondent was in the business of the design, manufacture and supply of transportable buildings, particularly in the mining industry.  The appellant was employed as the respondent's general manager of manufacturing.  He reported to the Board on the manufacturing process and managed the manufacturing supervisors.  The appellant was a senior employee of the respondent and his remuneration package reflected his seniority.

3. The employment agreement between the appellant and the respondent was in writing and contained a confidentiality clause, a non‑competition clause and a non‑solicitation clause.  The non‑competition clause prohibited the appellant, without the prior written consent of the respondent, from being directly or indirectly engaged or concerned or interested in any competing business in the restraint area during the restraint period.  The restraint area is Western Australia and Queensland, which is where the respondent carries on business, and the restraint…