Wallis Nominees (Computing) Pty Ltd v Pickett

Wallis Nominees (Computing) Pty Ltd sought relief against Pickett, an IT consultant who had breached a restraint of trade clause in his employment contract. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue was the enforceability of a restraint of trade clause in Pickett's employment contract with Wallis Nominees. This included the legitimacy of the employer's interest, the reasonableness of the restraint in terms of duration and scope, and the adequacy of the severance payment.

The court examined whether the restraint of trade clause was reasonable and enforceable, considering the employer's legitimate interest in protecting its business. The court found the clause to be unreasonable due to its broad scope and excessive duration, rendering it void. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of an argument presented on appeal that was not raised during the trial. The court considered whether such an argument could be entertained on appeal, applying principles from University of Wollongong v Metwally, Trans Petroleum (Australia) Pty Ltd v White Gum Petroleum Pty Ltd, and Banque Commerciale SA En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd. The court concluded that the argument could not be entertained as it was not raised at trial and would not serve the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court of South Australia found the restraint of trade clause to be unreasonable and void. The court also ruled that the argument raised on appeal, which was not presented at trial, could not be considered. The decision highlights the importance of raising all relevant arguments at trial and the court's adherence to the principle that arguments not run at trial will not be entertained on appeal unless exceptional circumstances apply.