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

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

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