Katerson Pty Ltd v Thambipillay [2016] NSWSC 1226

Katerson Pty Ltd v Thambipillay [2016] NSWSC 1226

Because the parties had agreed to mediate before 14 October 2016, it was appropriate to extend the existing injunctions only until 17 October 2016 so the mediation could occur and the matter could then be managed by the Registrar. However, the injunction should not be extended to QED Risk Services Pty Ltd because the plaintiffs had difficulty showing, even at the serious-question level, that cl 5 could support that restraint, the first defendant denied relevant dealings with QED, and there was no real evidence of detriment or legitimate interest requiring restraint of the first defendant's use of QED for licensing or compliance assistance.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Concerning Restraint of Trade / Application to Extend Existing Interlocutory Restraint Orders
Outcome
Existing interlocutory orders extended until and including 17 October 2016; application to extend the injunction to QED Risk Services Pty Ltd refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'restraint of Trade' 'post Employment Restraint' 'mediation' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']
['equity' 'procedure' 'employment Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'restraint of Trade' 'post Employment Restraint' 'mediation' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Concerning Restraint of Trade / Application to Extend Existing Interlocutory Restraint Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the existing interlocutory injunction should be extended in time pending mediation.' 'Whether the injunction in relation to suppliers should be extended to include QED Risk Services Pty Ltd.' 'Whether cl 5 of the restraint provided a legal justification for restraining the first defendant from dealing with QED Risk Services Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the parties had agreed to mediate before 14 October 2016, it was appropriate to extend the existing injunctions only until 17 October 2016 so the mediation could occur and the matter could then be managed by the Registrar. However, the injunction should not be extended to QED Risk Services Pty Ltd because the plaintiffs had difficulty showing, even at the serious-question level, that cl 5 could support that restraint, the first defendant denied relevant dealings with QED, and there was no real evidence of detriment or legitimate interest requiring restraint of the first defendant's use of QED for licensing or compliance assistance.

Court Disposition

Existing interlocutory orders extended until and including 17 October 2016; application to extend the injunction to QED Risk Services Pty Ltd refused.

Orders

  • ['The existing orders are extended, upon the plaintiffs continuing the usual undertaking as to damages, up until and including 17 October 2016.' 'The matter is listed before the Registrar on 17 October 2016.' 'The injunction is not extended so as to include QED Risk Services Pty Ltd.']