Long Jetty Realty Pty Ltd v Whiteman [2018] NSWSC 956

Long Jetty Realty Pty Ltd v Whiteman [2018] NSWSC 956

The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there may be an arguable case as to the existence and enforceability of restraint provisions, damages were found to be an adequate remedy for any loss suffered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' losses were particularised, and there was insufficient basis to conclude damages could not compensate for them. The evidence did not support interlocutory injunctive relief.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Long Jetty Realty Pty Ltd; Second Plaintiff: Long Jetty PM Pty Ltd; Third Plaintiff: JMB (NSW) Pty Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff: Jaimie Mark Woodcock; First Defendant: Brian Whiteman; Second Defendant: Jennifer Whiteman; Third Defendant: Baralga Nominees Pty Ltd; Fourth Defendant: Whiteman Investment Holdings Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity / Interlocutory Application – Notice of Motion for Injunction
Legal Topics
Injunction, Restraint of Trade, Consultancy Agreement, Adequacy of Damages
Equity Injunction Restraint of Trade Consultancy Agreement Adequacy of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Long Jetty Realty Pty Ltd

First Plaintiff

Long Jetty PM Pty Ltd

Second Plaintiff

JMB (NSW) Pty Ltd

Third Plaintiff

Jaimie Mark Woodcock

Fourth Plaintiff

Brian Whiteman

First Defendant

Jennifer Whiteman

Second Defendant

Baralga Nominees Pty Ltd

Third Defendant

Whiteman Investment Holdings Pty Ltd

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity / Interlocutory Application – Notice of Motion for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain defendants from providing real estate services within a specified area
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy
  3. 3 Whether consultancy agreement and restraint clause are valid and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there may be an arguable case as to the existence and enforceability of restraint provisions, damages were found to be an adequate remedy for any loss suffered by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' losses were particularised, and there was insufficient basis to conclude damages could not compensate for them. The evidence did not support interlocutory injunctive relief.