Worley Limited v Crowley

In *Worley Limited v Crowley*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Worley Limited (the employer) and Mr. Crowley (the former employee) concerning the enforceability of a restraint of trade clause in Mr. Crowley's employment contract. The case involved an appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the restraint of trade clause, which sought to prevent Mr. Crowley from engaging in competitive activities for a period after his employment ceased, was void as being contrary to public policy. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the enforceability of such restraints, particularly in the context of an employee's right to earn a livelihood and an employer's legitimate interest in protecting its business.

The High Court reasoned that the restraint of trade clause was unreasonable and therefore void. Applying established legal principles, the Court found that the scope of the restraint was wider than necessary to protect Worley Limited's legitimate business interests. The clause sought to prevent Mr. Crowley from engaging in a broad range of activities, many of which did not directly compete with Worley Limited's core business, and extended to geographical areas beyond those where Worley Limited operated. The Court emphasised that restraints of trade are prima facie void and will only be upheld if they are reasonable, both in the interests of the parties and the public. In this instance, the breadth of the restriction outweighed any legitimate proprietary interest Worley Limited sought to protect.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court, finding the restraint of trade clause to be unenforceable.