
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
DadCo sold its rent roll to P. P got to work collecting rent, employing DadCo’s former property manager, PM.
P later made PM redundant. PM planned to take up employment with another estate agent, CousCo, 1.8km away performing the same role: [59]
To add spice: PM’s dad was a director of DadCo and PM’s cousin was the sole director of CousCo. The relevant family name carried weight: [114]
The employment contract between P and PM included restraints on her post-employment conduct: [13] P sought an injunction preventing PM from working for CousCo: [12]
The Court had to consider (i) whether there was a serious question to be tried, and (ii) whether the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.
As PM was the “human face” of P, it was seriously arguable that a 4 month restraint would be too short and that a non-compete was legitimate protection for P: [102], [119]
On balance of convenience, despite the hardship of being prevented from working within 5km PM was only paid a salary, meaning damages – rather than an injunction – would be fine: [131]
P got up on balance of convenience and serious question to be tried. Injunctions granted: [141] to [143]
Dundeon Pty Limited v Richard Wills [2020] NSWSC 15
5
22 ratings
DadCo sold its rent roll to P. P got to work collecting rent, employing DadCo’s former property manager, PM.
P later made PM redundant. PM planned to take up employment with another estate agent, CousCo, 1.8km away performing the same role: [59]
To add spice: PM’s dad was a director of DadCo and PM’s cousin was the sole director of CousCo. The relevant family name carried weight: [114]
The employment contract between P and PM included restraints on her post-employment conduct: [13] P sought an injunction preventing PM from working for CousCo: [12]
The Court had to consider (i) whether there was a serious question to be tried, and (ii) whether the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.
As PM was the “human face” of P, it was seriously arguable that a 4 month restraint would be too short and that a non-compete was legitimate protection for P: [102], [119]
On balance of convenience, despite the hardship of being prevented from working within 5km PM was only paid a salary, meaning damages – rather than an injunction – would be fine: [131]
P got up on balance of convenience and serious question to be tried. Injunctions granted: [141] to [143]
Dundeon Pty Limited v Richard Wills [2020] NSWSC 15
68 Listeners
756 Listeners
23 Listeners
862 Listeners
69 Listeners
18 Listeners
51 Listeners
32 Listeners
313 Listeners
143 Listeners
243 Listeners
51 Listeners
40 Listeners
18 Listeners
19 Listeners