“Restrain our (former?) partner from competing with us!”
___
In 2020, the Ps entered into a partnership agreement with D1 to run an accounting practice: [3]
In 2022, D1 incorporated D2: [4]
Ps wanted the Court’s help to immediately stop D1 and D2 from chasing the Ps’ clients: [5] - [8]
The partnership agreement had various restrictions including on partners not trading as accountants for 2 years after the end of the agreement in the relevant area: [46]
RE whether the Ps had a prima facie case (the first of the two interloc injunction criteria) the Court gave a (respectfully) excellent summary of the applicable restraint of trade principles: [66]
This matter concerned restraining a *partner*, not an employee, however the Court held the same general principles apply: [70]
The Ps gave evidence saying in May 2022 D1 indicated a planned resignation: [72]
The Ps sent an internal email regarding the resignation saying it would be effective on 30 June 2022. D1 was CC’d and made no objection to the email at the time: [75], [77]
In December 2022, D1 ceased receiving partnership drawings and was “cut off” from IT systems, clients and staff without notice: [88]
In January 2023, D1 commenced employment apparently by a firm with a similar name to D2, but later continued to hold himself out as a partner of the partnership in some contexts: [92], [93] 
In March 2023, an employee of the firm resigned, giving the reason they were following D1 to their new firm, D2: [94], [95]
At around that time, a client of the firm said they were approached by D1 and sought clarification. This galvanised the Ps into action: [96], [97]
A number of the firm’s clients indicated they were following D1 to give their work to D2: [100] - [105]
In May 2023, the Ps’ lawyers wrote to D1 asserting a breach of partnership obligations: [112]
There was contested evidence about the timing of D1’s resignation, or whether he resigned at all! D1 remained listed on the firm website in 2023 but for the purposes of the interloc application, the Court finds there is a prima facie case D1 has resigned: [114] - [129]
Following argument about whether a clause precluded D1 from soliciting the firm’s clients or (more broadly) competing with the firm at all - the Court accepted it was arguable that the covenant against competition (the broad one) was enforceable: [130] - [134]
Evidence showing clients of the firm withdrawing work on account of D1’s conduct was found to ground an arguable position that D1 had breached the partnership agreement: [148]
The Court accepted, too, that there was evidence of a prima facie case to restrain D2 noting a covenanter cannot evade a covenant simply by creating a new entity: [151], [160]
In relation to the balance of convenience the Court accepted there was evidence D1 would suffer financial hardship, and that there was evidence the Ps would suffer loss. On balance the Court considered injunctive relief appropriate and made the orders sought: [171]

___

Please look out for James d'Apice and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform