Valoutin Pty Ltd v Furst

Valoutin Pty Ltd, an Australian company, brought an application against Furst, the first respondent, and two other respondents, regarding a dispute over property and contract breaches. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved claims of trespass and breach of contract, as well as a cross-claim by a third party against the respondents.

The legal issues before the court included the validity and scope of the respondents' claims for an injunction, the enforceability of a non-competition clause, and the merits of the applicants' and cross-claimant's claims for damages. The court had to decide whether the applicants were entitled to an injunction preventing the respondents from entering the property and if the non-competition clause was binding on the respondents. Additionally, the court had to assess the merits of the applicants' and cross-claimant's claims for damages for trespass and breach of contract.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the applicants were not entitled to an injunction as the respondents were not in breach of any contract or had not committed any acts of trespass. The court found that the non-competition clause was not enforceable against the respondents. The court also determined that the applicants and cross-claimant had established their claims for damages for trespass and breach of contract. Consequently, the court ordered that the applicants pay the first respondent's costs and that the respondents pay the cross-claimant's costs. The court further directed that damages for the breach of contract and trespass be assessed in the absence of agreement, with liberty to apply for directions regarding the ascertainment of damages.