Prescott Securities Limited v Middleton [2012] FCA 378

Prescott Securities Limited v Middleton [2012] FCA 378

The interim injunction was not discharged because the alleged non-disclosure concerning clause 5.1C had been signalled by the 4 April 2012 letter and properly disclosed, clause 5.5 of the confidentiality and non-competition deed did not establish that damages would necessarily be adequate, and the evidence disclosed sufficient urgency to restrain the relevant communications for the few days until the interlocutory hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application for Interim Injunction and Oral Application to Discharge Interim Injunction / Interim Order Pending Hearing of Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Oral application to discharge the interim injunction refused; matter stood over for hearing of the interlocutory application.
Legal Topics
['ex Parte Interim Injunction' 'application to Discharge Interim Injunction' 'material Non Disclosure' 'urgency' 'employment Confidentiality and Non Competition Deed' 'restraint Provisions']
['civil Procedure' 'injunctions' 'employment Law'] ['ex Parte Interim Injunction' 'application to Discharge Interim Injunction' 'material Non Disclosure' 'urgency' 'employment Confidentiality and Non Competition Deed' 'restraint Provisions']

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

Urgent Application for Interim Injunction and Oral Application to Discharge Interim Injunction / Interim Order Pending Hearing of Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the interim injunction made ex parte should be discharged for alleged non-disclosure of material matters.' 'Whether sufficient urgency was disclosed to warrant the interim injunction pending the interlocutory application.' 'Whether the existence of a contractual clause concerning repayment or damages meant damages would necessarily be an adequate response to any breach.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interim injunction was not discharged because the alleged non-disclosure concerning clause 5.1C had been signalled by the 4 April 2012 letter and properly disclosed, clause 5.5 of the confidentiality and non-competition deed did not establish that damages would necessarily be adequate, and the evidence disclosed sufficient urgency to restrain the relevant communications for the few days until the interlocutory hearing.

Court Disposition

Oral application to discharge the interim injunction refused; matter stood over for hearing of the interlocutory application.

Orders

  • ['The oral application for discharge of the interim injunction made yesterday is refused.' 'The matter be stood over to 9.30 am on Wednesday 11 April 2012 for hearing of the interlocutory application.']