Merrill Lynch (Aust) Pty Ltd v Johnson Taylor Potter Ltd [2001] FCA 241

Merrill Lynch (Aust) Pty Ltd v Johnson Taylor Potter Ltd [2001] FCA 241

The injunction was discharged as the balance of convenience did not favour its continuation, damages were considered an adequate remedy, and the evidence did not clearly establish that irreparable harm would result to the applicant if the injunction were discharged.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Injunction
Outcome
Injunction discharged; costs awarded to respondents.
Legal Topics
['ex Parte Injunctions' 'restrictive Covenants' 'employee Movement' 'balance of Convenience' 'injunctive Relief']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment Law'] ['ex Parte Injunctions' 'restrictive Covenants' 'employee Movement' 'balance of Convenience' 'injunctive Relief']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application to Discharge Ex Parte Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ex parte injunction against former employees should be discharged' 'Whether general rules against employees taking client lists are modified by industry practice' 'Whether balance of convenience favours continuing or discharging the injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged as the balance of convenience did not favour its continuation, damages were considered an adequate remedy, and the evidence did not clearly establish that irreparable harm would result to the applicant if the injunction were discharged.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • ['The injunction granted on 14 February 2001 is discharged.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application for an interlocutory injunction."]