Legal Research
Cases
Waters v PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd

Waters v PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 6 July 1994 1 min read

Contents

On this page

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: WATERS v P C HENDERSON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [1994] NSWCA 338
Decision date: 06 July 1994

See Attachment (PDF)

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 Waters v PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd 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: [1994] NSWCA 338
Decision Date: 06 July 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Waters v PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr Waters, and the respondent, PC Henderson (Australia) Pty Ltd. The case concerned the interpretation and enforceability of a restraint of trade clause contained within an employment contract.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the restraint of trade clause, which sought to prevent Mr Waters from engaging in a competing business for a specified period after his employment ceased, was reasonable and therefore legally enforceable. This involved an assessment of the scope of the restraint, its geographical reach, and the duration, in light of the employer's legitimate business interests.

The Court applied established principles of contract law concerning restraints of trade. It considered whether the restraint went beyond what was necessary to protect PC Henderson's proprietary interests, such as confidential information or customer connections, and whether it unduly restricted Mr Waters' ability to earn a living. The Court's reasoning focused on balancing the employer's right to protect its business against the employee's right to freedom of trade.

Ultimately, the Court found that the restraint of trade clause was unreasonable and therefore void. The orders made reflected this finding, allowing Mr Waters to pursue his chosen profession without the encumbrance of the restrictive covenant.

Orders