| Featured Legal Services |
|---|
| Keyword Search |
|---|
| Showing Restraint: Non-Competition Law and Former Employees | | Print | |
| Written by Mike Clarke | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 03 September 2007 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Unfortunately, this is often the wrong time to ask a lawyer to take action to restrain unlawful competition by a former employee. It can be too late. Most of the necessary action should have been taken before the former employee was recruited. That is, much will depend on the employment contract, organisational policies and procedures and related HR documents being in place before and enforced during the time the (now) ex-employee worked for you.
7 propositions for effective restraint of former employees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Facts: |
A former state
manager for Aussie Home Loans’ (Aussie) left to set up a rival home mortgage
company and poached Aussie staff.
|
|
Restraint: |
His employment contract
stated that he should not, for a period of 12 months after the termination of
his employment, ‘solicit, interfere with or endeavour to entice away any
employee or contractor of Aussie Home Loans’.
|
|
|
Decision: |
The clause was
very wide; it restrained the poaching of all Aussie employees and
contractors, regardless of their position (or location) or even if the employee
had not been there whilst he was at Aussie. The length of the restraint (12
months) was also deemed excessive because of the short termination Aussie
could invoke, and the market for the services of loan writers was competitive
and fluid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts: |
The New South Wales sales manager for Cactus Imaging Pty Limited left and took up employment with Cactus’ major competitor.
|
|
Restraint: |
He was prevented, after ceasing employment, from disclosing any of Cactus’ confidential information to other persons, carrying on, or engaging in, a business competitive with Cactus’ business for 12 months after his employment ceased, soliciting Cactus’ clients for 12 months or poaching Cactus’ employees for 12 months after his employment ceased.
|
|
|
Decision: |
The court found the employee was in possession of Cactus’ confidential information (eg, basis for quotes and terms of trade) which would give the competitor a significant advantage in taking business away from Cactus. The length (12 months) was reasonable given the information about Cactus' business would have relevance for up to 12 months, and a competent replacement employee would take some time to become effective and establish rapport with customers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts: |
A Senior Regional Property Manager with Woolworths Ltd for 14 years left and commenced employment with Myer in the role of General Manager Property.
|
|
Restraint: |
The employment contract restraint prevented the employee competing with Woolworths for a period of six months. Woolworths provided the employee with a cheque for six months of net entitlements.
|
|
|
Decision: |
The main question to be tried was, did Myer compete with Woolworths? Interestingly, the court looked at a previous situation where a former Woolworths employee left and became the CEO of Myer, yet Woolworths did not enforce the restraint. Further, Myer introduced evidence that the businesses did not compete which was not challenged or controverted by any evidence led by Woolworths. The court ruled that Myer and Woolworths are not “competitive business” for the purposes of the relevant employment contract. |
Need help? Talk to us today about putting in place measures to protect your business from the wandering eye of your employees. We have a range of solutions that can be customised to suit the needs of businesses both large and small.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Case References:
1 Aussie Home Loans v X Inc Services [2005] NSWSC 285
2 Cactus Imaging Pty Limited v Glenn Peters [2006] NSWSC 717
3 Woolworths Ltd v Banks [2007] NSW SC 45 (24 January 2007)
|
Want free initial legal advice?
Let's talk about your intellectual property, commercialisation and business law needs. Call Noric Dilanchian of Dilanchian Lawyers & Consultants: Tel (+61 2) 9269 0229. After hours send an email or better still an Enquiry Form. We'll reply with a costed proposal. FAQ | What we do | Testimonials
Subscribe: Cue newsletter (free) | RSS feed Search: Overall site search | Library-specific search | Library downloads page Firm: Firm Differentiation | Firm Brochure [PDF] |
| Add Comments |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| Main Menu | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Free Tools |
|---|
| Registered Users | |
|---|---|
|

