Wright v Ryan & Anor [2005] NSWCA 368

Wright v Ryan & Anor [2005] NSWCA 368

The appellant breached undertakings given to the Court by carrying on business in competition with the second respondent and approaching its customers; circumstantial evidence established repetitive conduct, and the fresh evidence was not credible nor capable of producing a different result. Undertakings were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforced. Acceptance of a business proposal from a customer constituted a breach of undertaking.

Parties
Appellant: Craig Wright; First Respondent: Michael Ryan; Second Respondent: DeMorgan Information Security Systems Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Fresh Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Requirements for Fresh Evidence, Ambiguity and Enforcement of Undertakings, Competition and Business Undertakings, Approaching Customers, Restraint of Trade
Contempt of Court Evidence Appeals Fresh Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Requirements for Fresh Evidence Ambiguity and Enforcement of Undertakings Competition and Business Undertakings +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Wright

Appellant

Michael Ryan

First Respondent

DeMorgan Information Security Systems Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh or additional evidence could be admitted in an appeal from conviction for contempt of Court
  2. 2 Whether circumstantial evidence supports finding of repetitive conduct amounting to carrying on business
  3. 3 Whether undertakings given to the Court were ambiguous or unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant breached undertakings given to the Court by carrying on business in competition with the second respondent and approaching its customers; circumstantial evidence established repetitive conduct, and the fresh evidence was not credible nor capable of producing a different result. Undertakings were sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforced. Acceptance of a business proposal from a customer constituted a breach of undertaking.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs