White It Pty Ltd v Heywood

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

White IT Pty Ltd v Heywood & Anor [2019] QSC 215

PARTIES:

WHITE IT PTY LTD ACN 600 490 266

(applicant)

v
MATTHEW HEYWOOD (AKA MATT HEYWOOD; AKA MATTHEW WAKELING)

(first respondent)
HEYTECH IT PTY LTD ACN 630 311 434
(second respondent)

FILE NO:

3120 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 August 2019

JUDGE:

Dalton J

ORDERS:

1.   Declare that charge 1 is proved as a contempt of Court.

2.    Declare that charges 2 and 3 are not proved as contempt of Court.

COUNSEL:

P Somers for the applicant

M Black for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Bennett & Philp Lawyers for the applicant

PM Lee & Co Lawyers for the respondents

1. This is an application seeking that the respondents be punished for contempt for conduct said to have been prohibited by an order made in the applications jurisdiction on 27 March 2019.  It is convenient to begin by setting out that part of the order which it is alleged has been breached:

   “THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

   1.     Until the trial of this proceeding, or earlier or other order, the first respondent and the second respondent be restrained from:

   (a)approaching or accepting any approach from any of the applicant’s clients, with a view to soliciting the business of the client for the respondents or anybody else;

(b)inducing or encouraging any of the applicant’s clients to terminate or restrict their trade relationship with the applicant;

(c)using in the respondents’ business the applicant’s electronic data downloaded from the applicant’s SharePoint files and CRM database;

(d)acting, or will cease acting, for any of the applicant’s clients and provide evidence of such refusal or ceasing to act to the applicant.

…”

1. The background to the proceeding is that Mr David White, who is the sole director of the applicant company, carries on an information technology business using the applicant company as the vehicle.  On 24 November 2017 the applicant entered into a contract with the first respondent pursuant to which the first respondent agreed to provide the applicant with services – cl 2.1.  The parties did not enter into an employment relationship, but the first respondent was essentially to perform some of the work of the business carried on by the applicant.  Clause 5 of the agreement between the applicant and the first respondent reads as follows:

   “5.     RESTRAINT OF TRADE

   The Contractor will not in any capacity, directly or indirectly:

   (a)induce, encourage or solicit any of the Principal’s employees or agents to leave the Principal’s employment or agency;

   (b)approach or accept any approach from any of the Principal’s clients with a view to soliciting the business of the client for the Contractor or anybody else;

   (c)approach or accept any approach from any of the Principal’s clients with a view to gaining employment for the Contractor or anybody else;

   (d)induce or encourage any of the Principal’s clients or suppliers to terminate…