Ecolab Pty Limited v Stephen Garland [2011] NSWSC 1095

Ecolab Pty Limited v Stephen Garland [2011] NSWSC 1095

There is a seriously arguable case that the defendant is in breach of valid and enforceable non-solicitation and non-compete restraints; however, given the involuntary redundancy, representations made about the scope of restraint on redundancy, the reduction in the employer's business in which the defendant had customer connection, and the hardship to the defendant, the court, on discretionary grounds, is unlikely on final hearing to enforce the non-compete restraint by final injunction but may enforce the non-solicitation restraint. Accordingly, interlocutory relief will only be granted in terms of the non-solicit restraint.

Parties
Plaintiff: Ecolab Pty Limited; Defendant: Stephen Garland
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in terms of non-solicitation restraint only; refused in terms of non-compete restraint. Costs to be costs in the proceedings.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Non Solicitation, Non Compete, Injunctions
Employment Law Equity Restraint of Trade Non Solicitation Non Compete Injunctions

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ecolab Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Stephen Garland

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has breached post-employment non-compete and non-solicit restraints
  2. 2 Whether the restraints are reasonable and enforceable
  3. 3 Whether equitable discretion should preclude enforcement of the restraint by interlocutory injunction

Ratio Decidendi

There is a seriously arguable case that the defendant is in breach of valid and enforceable non-solicitation and non-compete restraints; however, given the involuntary redundancy, representations made about the scope of restraint on redundancy, the reduction in the employer's business in which the defendant had customer connection, and the hardship to the defendant, the court, on discretionary grounds, is unlikely on final hearing to enforce the non-compete restraint by final injunction but may enforce the non-solicitation restraint. Accordingly, interlocutory relief will only be granted in terms of the non-solicit restraint.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in terms of non-solicitation restraint only; refused in terms of non-compete restraint. Costs to be costs in the proceedings.

Orders

  • The defendant is restrained until final hearing from breaching the non-solicitation restraint in his employment contract with the plaintiff.
  • Application for interlocutory injunction in terms of non-compete restraint refused. Costs of the interlocutory application will be costs in the proceedings.