Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share DXC Eclipse Pty Ltd v Wildsmith (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1330
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
DXC Eclipse Pty Ltd v Wildsmith (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1330
"Stop competing with the business you sold me!"
___
In 2018, P bought a business from the Ds by buying all shares in the Co, ObjectCo, that operated the business from D1 and D2 for $9.5m: [1], [10]
P is a local subsidiary of a multi-national group that sells and installs business software: [2], [3]
ObjectCo sold and installed similar but more complex, pricier software: [4]
ObjectCo’s business was therefore complimentary to, not competitive with, P’s business: [5], [69]
D1 was ObjectCo’s controlling mind. D2 was D1’s company: [8], [9]
The sale contract prevented D1 and D2 from competing with ObjectCo or poaching staff: [10]
After the sale, P integrated ObjectCo’s business into its own and employed D1 until D1’s resignation in July 2021: [11]
In Dec 2021, D1 returned to the software business using NewCo, almost wholly owned by D2: [13]
D1 also joined the board of NewerCo, which dealt in software potentially complementary to NewCo’s: [14]
P claims the businesses of NewCo and NewerCo are a breach of D1’s and D2’s non-compete restraints: [15]
D1 disagrees and says to the extent there’s competition, it’s legitimate: [15]
Interlocutory injunctions were granted. A final hearing followed: [17] - [20]
D1 agreed not to solicit customers or employees from ObjectCo: [22]
P sought further restraints: restricting D1’s involvement with NewCo and NewerCo, restricting D1’s dealings with suppliers, and extending the prevention on poaching employees: [23] - [25]
The question arises: are the restraints in the contract reasonable enough to be enforceable?: [27]
The background of the software environment and its marketing is (with respect) usefully set out at [34] - [53], [70] - [88]
An expert gave evidence that once a firm chooses software, the complexities involved with ending that relationship formed a “barrier to exit”. Clients are sticky: [86]
D1’s plan was to use NewCo and NewerCo to target the high end of “BC” clients and not the more valuable, more competitive “F&O” space where ObjectCo had operated. The issue was: did the restraints in the sale contract prevent this?: [108], [114]
(In considering the issue of whether the upgraded BC product with add-ins was competitive with F&O, an independent expert said this was “like arguing a ute, plus a trailer competes with a B-Double truck”: [81])
The issue then was: does the restraint apply to BC and, if so, was that reasonable?: [115]
Following extended and (with respect) precise analysis of the terms of the clause, the Court found the non-compete did not apply to BC: [149]
The Court found the business of NewCo was not indirectly competitive with ObjectCo: [158]
The injunction P sought to prevent dealings NewCo might have with the supplier of the software was not reasonable to protect P’s interests as the claimed restraint did not have a sufficient relationship with the goodwill P purchased: [182]
P’s claim for a final injunction was dismissed: [190]
___
And please follow James d'Apice and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!
View all episodes
By James d'Apice
5
22 ratings
"Stop competing with the business you sold me!"
___
In 2018, P bought a business from the Ds by buying all shares in the Co, ObjectCo, that operated the business from D1 and D2 for $9.5m: [1], [10]
P is a local subsidiary of a multi-national group that sells and installs business software: [2], [3]
ObjectCo sold and installed similar but more complex, pricier software: [4]
ObjectCo’s business was therefore complimentary to, not competitive with, P’s business: [5], [69]
D1 was ObjectCo’s controlling mind. D2 was D1’s company: [8], [9]
The sale contract prevented D1 and D2 from competing with ObjectCo or poaching staff: [10]
After the sale, P integrated ObjectCo’s business into its own and employed D1 until D1’s resignation in July 2021: [11]
In Dec 2021, D1 returned to the software business using NewCo, almost wholly owned by D2: [13]
D1 also joined the board of NewerCo, which dealt in software potentially complementary to NewCo’s: [14]
P claims the businesses of NewCo and NewerCo are a breach of D1’s and D2’s non-compete restraints: [15]
D1 disagrees and says to the extent there’s competition, it’s legitimate: [15]
Interlocutory injunctions were granted. A final hearing followed: [17] - [20]
D1 agreed not to solicit customers or employees from ObjectCo: [22]
P sought further restraints: restricting D1’s involvement with NewCo and NewerCo, restricting D1’s dealings with suppliers, and extending the prevention on poaching employees: [23] - [25]
The question arises: are the restraints in the contract reasonable enough to be enforceable?: [27]
The background of the software environment and its marketing is (with respect) usefully set out at [34] - [53], [70] - [88]
An expert gave evidence that once a firm chooses software, the complexities involved with ending that relationship formed a “barrier to exit”. Clients are sticky: [86]
D1’s plan was to use NewCo and NewerCo to target the high end of “BC” clients and not the more valuable, more competitive “F&O” space where ObjectCo had operated. The issue was: did the restraints in the sale contract prevent this?: [108], [114]
(In considering the issue of whether the upgraded BC product with add-ins was competitive with F&O, an independent expert said this was “like arguing a ute, plus a trailer competes with a B-Double truck”: [81])
The issue then was: does the restraint apply to BC and, if so, was that reasonable?: [115]
Following extended and (with respect) precise analysis of the terms of the clause, the Court found the non-compete did not apply to BC: [149]
The Court found the business of NewCo was not indirectly competitive with ObjectCo: [158]
The injunction P sought to prevent dealings NewCo might have with the supplier of the software was not reasonable to protect P’s interests as the claimed restraint did not have a sufficient relationship with the goodwill P purchased: [182]
P’s claim for a final injunction was dismissed: [190]
___
And please follow James d'Apice and Coffee and a Case Note on your favourite platform!
More shows like Coffee and a Case Note
View all
All In The Mind
756 Listeners
Law Report
23 Listeners
Conversations
862 Listeners
Rear Vision — How History Shaped Today
69 Listeners
The Economy, Stupid
18 Listeners
Politics Now
104 Listeners
Australian Politics
51 Listeners
ABC News Daily
127 Listeners
If You're Listening
313 Listeners
Democracy Sausage with Mark Kenny
33 Listeners
7am
143 Listeners
What's That Rash?
243 Listeners
The Briefing
51 Listeners
Chanticleer
18 Listeners
The Fin
19 Listeners