Reed Business Information v Seymour [2010] NSWSC 790

Reed Business Information v Seymour [2010] NSWSC 790

The contract remains binding after the internal restructure; the confidentiality clause is valid only to the extent it protects specific confidential information that would give a competitor an advantage; the non-compete is enforceable to prevent the defendant from performing services for Medical Observer, a direct competitor, but not from working for UBM more broadly. Discretion and balance of convenience favour granting an injunction limited to such services, not a broader restraint, due to likely hardship to the defendant and limited strength of the plaintiff's claim regarding other UBM roles.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in part
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'restraint of Trade' 'non Compete Clauses' 'confidential Information']
['employment Law' 'equity' 'contract Law'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'restraint of Trade' 'non Compete Clauses' 'confidential Information']

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 / Judgment on Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant is bound by the terms of her written contract following changes to her role' 'Whether the confidentiality provision in the contract is enforceable as a reasonable restraint of trade' "Whether the non-compete clause is enforceable and has been breached by the defendant's employment with UBM Medica Australia Ltd" 'Whether discretionary factors warrant the grant of interlocutory relief']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract remains binding after the internal restructure; the confidentiality clause is valid only to the extent it protects specific confidential information that would give a competitor an advantage; the non-compete is enforceable to prevent the defendant from performing services for Medical Observer, a direct competitor, but not from working for UBM more broadly. Discretion and balance of convenience favour granting an injunction limited to such services, not a broader restraint, due to likely hardship to the defendant and limited strength of the plaintiff's claim regarding other UBM roles.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in part

Orders

  • ['The defendant is restrained from disclosing or using for personal gain certain categories of confidential information except as permitted.' 'The defendant is restrained, until further order or 7 May 2011 (whichever is earlier), from performing any services for Medical Observer, including contacting advertisers or...