Baker & McAuliffe Holdings Pty Ltd t/as JSB Lighting v Carey [2018] FCA 1972

Baker & McAuliffe Holdings Pty Ltd t/as JSB Lighting v Carey [2018] FCA 1972

Although there is a serious question to be tried regarding the enforceability and breach of the restraint clause in Mr Carey's contract, interlocutory injunctive relief is refused as damages are an adequate remedy, the applicant delayed in seeking relief, no related final injunctive relief is sought in the originating process, and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the injunction.

Parties
Applicant: Baker & McAuliffe Holdings Pty Ltd t/as JSB Lighting; First Respondent: Mathew Carey; Second Respondent: BFD Lighting Pty Limited t/as Modular Lighting & Partners; Third Respondent: Dudley Hewitt; Fourth Respondent: Andrew Whittles
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Corporations / Commercial Contracts / Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Decision on Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs; matter to proceed to case management hearing.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Restraint of Trade, Employment Contracts, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience, Delay in Seeking Relief
Corporations Law Equity Employment Law Interlocutory Injunctions Restraint of Trade Employment Contracts Breach of Fiduciary Duty Adequacy of Damages +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baker & McAuliffe Holdings Pty Ltd t/as JSB Lighting

Applicant

Mathew Carey

First Respondent

BFD Lighting Pty Limited t/as Modular Lighting & Partners

Second Respondent

Dudley Hewitt

Third Respondent

Andrew Whittles

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Corporations / Commercial Contracts / Interlocutory Injunction Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction; Decision on Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining the first and second respondents from contacting certain clients and participating in specified projects.
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to breach of contract (restraint clause) and its validity under Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW) or common law.
  3. 3 Whether damages are an adequate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

Although there is a serious question to be tried regarding the enforceability and breach of the restraint clause in Mr Carey's contract, interlocutory injunctive relief is refused as damages are an adequate remedy, the applicant delayed in seeking relief, no related final injunctive relief is sought in the originating process, and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed with costs; matter to proceed to case management hearing.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application filed on 16 October 2018 be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the first and second respondent's costs of the interlocutory application.