Brightman v Lamson Paragon Limited [1914] HCA 90

The restriction on the defendant, as to both area and duration, was no wider than reasonably necessary for the protection of the plaintiff company's business and was thus valid and enforceable.

Parties: Appellant; Defendant: Brightman; Respondents; Plaintiffs: Lamson Paragon Limited
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 11 August 1914
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Decision on Appeal
Outcome: appeal dismissed; with costs; order as varied affirmed
Legal Topics: Restraint of Trade, Employment Contracts, Reasonableness of Covenants, Injunctions

Contract Law Employment Law Restraint of Trade Employment Contracts Reasonableness of Covenants Injunctions

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Brightman

Appellant; Defendant

Lamson Paragon Limited

Respondents; Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether an agreement restraining an ex-employee from engaging in similar business for ten years in Australia and New Zealand is reasonable as to area and duration

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction on the defendant, as to both area and duration, was no wider than reasonably necessary for the protection of the plaintiff company's business and was thus valid and enforceable.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; with costs; order as varied affirmed

Orders

Injunction restraining the defendant for ten years from 22 August 1911 (if and so long as the plaintiffs carry on in Australia or New Zealand the business of manufacturers or vendors of cash-sales or other check books for any of the purposes for which such books were manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs before 22...
Order affirmed with verbal variations suggested during argument.