Legal Research
Cases
Workplace Access and Safety Pty Ltd v Mackie

Workplace Access and Safety Pty Ltd v Mackie

Link copied

Case Copied 28 February 2014 35 min read

Contents

On this page

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: WORKPLACE ACCESS AND SAFETY PTY LTD -v- MACKIE [2014] WASC 62

CORAM: EDELMAN J

HEARD: 28 FEBRUARY 2014

DELIVERED : 28 FEBRUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 1251 of 2014

BETWEEN: WORKPLACE ACCESS AND SAFETY PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
DAMIAN MACKIE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Interlocutory injunctions - Application for injunction to restrain the defendant from accepting employment with a competitor of the plaintiff - Restraint of trade clause - Balance of convenience

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed on undertakings from the Defendant

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M Holler
Defendant: In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Kliger Partners
Defendant: In person

Cases referred to in judgment:

AB Hassle v Pharmacia (Australia) Pty Ltd (1995) 33 IPR 63
Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 40; (1973) 133 CLR 288
Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
BDO Group Investments (NSW-VIC) Pty Ltd v Ngo [2010] VSC 206
Boyd v Wild Hibiscus Flower Company Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCA 74
Brightman v Lamson Paragon Ltd [1914] HCA 90; (1914) 18 CLR 331
Buckley v Tutty [1971] HCA 71; (1971) 125 CLR 353
Cerilian Pty Ltd v Fraser [2008] NSWSC 1016
Cohen v iSOFT Group Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 49; (2013) 218 ALR 516
Commissioner of Taxation v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (Australia) Pty Ltd [2000] HCA 35; 172 ALR 346
Complete Field Maintenance Pty Ltd v Coulson [2013] WASC 374
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; (2000) 176 ALR 693
Donoghue v Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCA 84
Emeco International Pty Ltd v O'Shea (No 2) [2012] WASC 348
Federated Mutual Insurance Co of Australia Ltd v Sabine [1920] SALR 284
Huhtamaki Australia Ltd v Botha [2004] NSWSC 386
I F Asia Pacific Pty Ltd v Galbally [2003] VSC 192; (2003) 59 IPR 43
Instyle Contract Textiles Pty Ltd v Good Environmental Choice Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 38
Jardin v Metcash Ltd [2011] NSWCA 409; (2011) 285 ALR 677
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Birt [2006] NSWSC 995
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Marley New Zealand Ltd v Icon Plastics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 851
Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co Ltd [1913] AC 724
Medrad Inc v Alpine Medical Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 949; (2009) 82 IPR 101
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] WASC 375
Nordenfelt v The Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535
Putsman v Taylor [1927] 1 KB 637
Quinn v Jack Chia (Australia) Ltd [1992] 1 VR 567
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 286 ALR 257
Smith v Nomad Modular Building Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 169
Twinside Pty Ltd v Venetian Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] WASC 110
Wellard…

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 Workplace Access and Safety Pty Ltd v Mackie 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: [2014] WASC 62
Decision Date: 28 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Workplace Access and Safety Pty Ltd, the applicant, and Mackie, the respondent. The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent from taking up a position with a competitor of the applicant. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the respondent was bound by a restraint of trade clause in his employment contract, which restricted him from working for a competitor within a certain geographical area for a specified period. The applicant contended that the respondent's acceptance of the position with the competitor would cause significant harm to its business and goodwill.

The court was required to determine whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to prevent the respondent from accepting the employment with the competitor. The primary issue was whether the restraint of trade clause was enforceable and whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant. The court considered the nature and scope of the restraint, the interests of the parties, and the public interest in ensuring that employees are not unduly restricted in their ability to seek employment.

The court held that the restraint of trade clause was valid and enforceable, as it was reasonable in all the circumstances. The clause was necessary to protect the applicant's legitimate business interests and was not overly restrictive. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as the respondent's employment with the competitor would cause significant harm to the applicant's business and goodwill. The court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondent from accepting the employment with the competitor until the final determination of the proceedings. The court also ordered the respondent to provide an undertaking as to costs in favour of the applicant.

Orders