Metcash Limited & Anor v Joao Louis Jardim (aka Louis Jardin) & Anor (No 4) [2010] NSWSC 1135

Metcash Limited & Anor v Joao Louis Jardim (aka Louis Jardin) & Anor (No 4) [2010] NSWSC 1135

The restraint in cl 3.2(d) of the employment deed relates to Mr Jardin's conditions of employment and therefore is excluded from the application of s 45 by s 51(2)(a) of the Competition Code; furthermore, no evidence established that the plaintiffs' conduct was likely to substantially lessen competition, as funding for SPAR Australia was available and any inability for SPAR Australia to compete was not caused by the restraint.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Post Hearing Judgment
Outcome
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Amended Cross-Claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['restraint of Trade' 'substantial Lessening of Competition' 'employment Contract' 'investment in Competitor']
['competition Law' 'employment Law'] ['restraint of Trade' 'substantial Lessening of Competition' 'employment Contract' 'investment in Competitor']

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

Principal Judgment / Post Hearing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether restraint clause in employment contract prohibiting investment in competitor has likely effect of substantially lessening competition under NSW Competition Code' 'Interpretation and application of s 45(2)(b)(ii) Competition Code and s 51(2)(a) excluding employment contract provisions from s 45 application']

Ratio Decidendi

The restraint in cl 3.2(d) of the employment deed relates to Mr Jardin's conditions of employment and therefore is excluded from the application of s 45 by s 51(2)(a) of the Competition Code; furthermore, no evidence established that the plaintiffs' conduct was likely to substantially lessen competition, as funding for SPAR Australia was available and any inability for SPAR Australia to compete was not caused by the restraint.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Amended Cross-Claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Amended Cross-Claim be dismissed.' 'Costs to be argued.']