Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited v Carr [2006] FCA 774

Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited v Carr [2006] FCA 774

Luxottica failed to establish that damages would be inadequate given Mr Carr's offer to keep customer records, and the evidence did not support an imminent or threatened breach of confidentiality or unlawful solicitation by Mr Carr. Luxottica did not establish a serious question to be tried against Hinkler. The...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited; First Respondent: Martin Carr; Second Respondent: Hinkler Eyewear Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Interlocutory Injunctions, Confidential Information, Contractual Obligations, Balance of Convenience
Employment Law Contract Law Equity Restraint of Trade Interlocutory Injunctions Confidential Information Contractual Obligations Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luxottica Retail Australia Pty Limited

Applicant

Martin Carr

First Respondent

Hinkler Eyewear Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted to restrain Mr Carr and Hinkler Eyewear Pty Ltd from certain conduct alleged to be in breach of an employment contract containing a restraint of trade clause.
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried regarding breach of contract and enforceability of the restraint of trade clause under the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW).
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if interlocutory relief is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

Luxottica failed to establish that damages would be inadequate given Mr Carr's offer to keep customer records, and the evidence did not support an imminent or threatened breach of confidentiality or unlawful solicitation by Mr Carr. Luxottica did not establish a serious question to be tried against Hinkler. The balance of convenience did not favour the grant of interlocutory relief given the potential impact on the respondents and the nature of the restraints sought.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed

Orders

  • The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.
  • The costs of the application for interlocutory relief be reserved.