Special Broadcasting Service Corporation v Andrew Corbett

The Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS) brought an action against Andrew Corbett, a senior technical employee, in the Federal Court of Australia. The SBS sought to enforce an employment contract, which was due to expire on 30 June 2017, and to prevent Corbett from terminating his employment prior to this date. Additionally, the SBS sought to restrain Corbett from disclosing confidential information and to obtain an interlocutory injunction to prevent Corbett from terminating his employment before the expiration of his contract and from using any confidential information. Corbett had given five weeks’ notice of termination in February 2016.

The court was required to determine whether Corbett's employment contract was terminable on reasonable notice before 30 June 2017, and if so, whether he had provided sufficient notice of termination. The court also needed to decide if the contract was void as a restraint of trade. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the information in Corbett's possession was confidential, whether he was likely to use it before the hearing, and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted. The SBS needed to establish a serious question to be tried and demonstrate that the balance of convenience and relevant factors favoured the grant of an injunction.

The court found that the employment contract was terminable on reasonable notice before 30 June 2017, and that Corbett had not provided sufficient notice of termination. The court determined that the contract was not void as a restraint of trade. The court also found that some of the information in Corbett's possession was confidential, and that he was likely to use it before the hearing. The court granted an interlocutory injunction to prevent Corbett from terminating his employment before the expiration of his contract and from using any confidential information, on terms to be determined by the parties.

The court ordered that Corbett was to refrain from terminating his employment before the end of his contract and from disclosing any confidential information. The court also ordered that the terms of the interlocutory injunction would be determined by the parties in consultation with the court.