Home : About Us :commun-iT blog  

commun-iT blog

Restraint not Effective

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Justice Sifris of the Supreme Court of Victoria (‘the Court’) has allowed a former employee of a company (‘the Employer’) to work for a previous client of the Employer despite a twelve (12) month restraint clause in the employee’s employment contract (‘the Agreement’). The Agreement stated that for a period of twelve (12) months after the employment ended, the Employee would not provide services or accept employment with any client of the Employer to whom the employee dealt with or had cause to be in contact with during his employment with the Employer (‘the Restraint’).

In February 2011, the employee began to provide services to a client of the Employer (‘the Client’) on a full-time basis. In November 2011, the Client went through a restructure, creating a new position. In December 2011, the Client approached the employee to determine his interest in filling the new position as an employee of the Client and the Employee advised the Client that he was interested.

 In January 2012, the Employee tendered his resignation to the Employer advising he would be taking the new position with the Client. The Employer advised the Employee that this would be in breach of the Restraint.

 In interpreting the Restraint, Justice Sifris held the Restraintpurports to operate to prohibit [the Employee] from providing any of the services normally provided by [the Employer] at the time [the Employee] finished working there to the clients that [the Employee] had actual contact with while [with the Employer] or had demonstrated reasons to be in contact with.”

 The Employer submitted the Restraint was “confined and did not go further than protecting the legitimate interests” of the Employer. Conversely, the Employee submitted that there was no legitimate interest that required protection.

 In determining whether the Restraint was valid and enforceable, Justice Sifris noted that “something more than exposure to or interaction with the customer or client by the employee is required…This would include personal or special knowledge (which may include confidential information) of the client and a significant degree of influence. It should be stressed that the risk of exploitation of such knowledge and connection, which the covenant seeks to protect, must be assessed at the date of the agreement.

 Justice Sifris held the Restraint was “void and unenforceable” finding the nature of the relationship between the Employer, employee and the Client did not place the employee in a “special category that would create the risk of exploitation that required protection by covenant…[the Employee] was not intended to be…the human face of [the Employer] or have the relevant and necessary control over the business of the client. His consultancy position… was not intended or contemplated to provide the basis for the development of a special relationship with the client of the kind that would provide the basis or foundation for later competition or exploitation.”    

This case highlights the importance of having properly drafted restraint clauses within employment contracts and confirms the issues that will be considered when a Court considers whether a restraint is enforceable. If you would like advice on post employment restraints, please contact Nick Stevens or Liza Isho.

Author:
Nick Stevens, Principal, Stevens & Associates Lawyers, an AIIA.biz expert and one of the Panel of Expert Bloggers.

This article provides general information only. It is not legal advice, and is not a substitute for legal advice. Specific advice should be sought to take into account your particular circumstances. Stevens & Associates Lawyers is a boutique industrial relations and employment law firm. It has liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

 

 

 

Trackback Link
http://www.communit.com.au/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=4468&PostID=281492&A=Trackback
Trackbacks
Post has no trackbacks.

Subscribe to the commun-iT blog RSS

 Recent Posts


Tags

breach of implied terms Fair Work Australia dividends term deposit contractual obligations Queensland State Government employers Federal Court of Australia IT Forum Gold Coast flood insurance Tours Hotel natural disaster warranty against defects Information gathering SME restraint of trade clause Survey data loans employment agreements Procure IT Win an iPad 2 Nick Stevens fuel tax credits ASIC Centennial Financial Services personal services income patent National Employment Standards Balance Professional Services employment contract Regulation 90 ABN indemnity selling your business termination Discounted Deals fraudulent refunds Contracting IT Law Peter Nolle employment law distribution agreement managed services Living Away from Home Allowance industrial action Government Grants Supply Management Fee copyright IP Benefits IT Contracts Law Stevens and Associates Greg Pearce Australian Workplace Agreements breach of employment contract superannuation ITFGC Australian Business Register underpayment Research and Development Tax Credit Tax rates SAAS www.aiia.biz unpaid work Financial Planning personal income tax employee IT Lawyer Treadstone sick leave compliance Insurance Advisernet Corporate and Commercial Law Professional Idemnity broker Fair Work Regulations Gold Coast ICT Forum ICT capability study AIIA.biz Maat Solutions Insurance small business individuals moral right government procurement Innovation Australia: AusIndustry PAAS enterprise agreement Falsify leave loading Compliance Program Free Basic Listing Agreements Contractor Advanced Findings Board of Taxation David Scott R&D tax Credit AUSkey Compulsory Employer Superannuation restraint Greg Tomkins adverse action PAYG Travel IT capability directory eServices ATO Australian Information Industry Assocation Matthew Karpanen Independent AIIA fines Peta Maloney Payment Summaries small business owners unfair dismissal warranties Clerical and Administrative Employees (State) Award Sham Guide reseller 2020 Mike Pym withholding rates company tax Fringe Benefit Software Research and Development Tax, Alex Bodnar confidentiality clause open source Employment benchmarking Civil Aviation Regulations Capability Study 2011 Superannuation Guarantee Tax Fair Work Act tax law Confidential information Division 7A discounted travel director duties Michael Blumenstein Research and Development Tax GST Pym's Technology Lawyers Software R&D Tax 12 percent Panel of Expert Bloggers IT Professionals Databases NES Fair Work Commission IAAS award Fair Work Ombudsman Consumer Law

Archive


    Our Expert Bloggers


    Mike Pym

    Mike is an entrepreneur and lawyer who leads two SMEs, one in the IT software industry, and a firm of lawyers specialising in IT law.


    Peta Maloney

    Company and commercial law, shareholder agreements, constitutions, directors’ duties, setting up companies, IT contracts, outsourcing, government procurement and privacy.

     
    Peter Nolle

    Government Grants from start up to export ready


    Alex Bodnar

    General insurance advisory for commercial & industrial risks, 
    Information Technology & Telecommunication exposures. 


    David Scott

    Investments, Superannuation,
    Life Insurance, Income Protection Insurance, Key Person Insurance, Debt Management, Gearing,
    Retirement Planning


    Mike Pym

    IT contracts, government procurement of IT, distribution agreements, outsourcing, contract management & dispute resolution.

     
    Nick Stevens

    Enterprise Agreements,
    Employment Contracts,
    Unfair Dismissal, EEO, 
    Workplace Surveillance & Privacy, OH&S

    Industry Associations

    fitt

    Contact

    Maat Solutions Pty Ltd
    Level 6, 60 Pitt Street
    Sydney NSW Australia

    T: +61 (02) 9247 9459
    F: +61 (02) 9247 9550













    Captcha Image