Sonnet Corp Pty Ltd v Wilson [2008] NSWSC 579

Sonnet Corp Pty Ltd v Wilson [2008] NSWSC 579

The employment restraint was refused because, although there was a serious question to be tried, the evidence that the plaintiff's business and People Telecom Limited's business were relevantly competitive and that the first defendant was engaged in a competitive area was confusing, inconclusive and weak; the plaintiff would have the protection of four other restraints; the first defendant's relationship with People Telecom Limited had existed for months with the plaintiff's knowledge and without objection; and the delay in seeking relief weighed against the balance of convenience.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Restraints by Former Employer Including Injunction to Restrain Employment / Interlocutory Application; Orders Made as Final Disposal of Proceedings
Outcome
Application for injunction to restrain employment of first defendant refused; four other restraints made by consent; proceedings otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'covenant Not to Compete' 'confidential Information' 'non Solicitation Restraints' 'balance of Convenience' 'delay']
['equity' 'trade and Commerce' 'restraint of Trade' 'employment'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'covenant Not to Compete' 'confidential Information' 'non Solicitation Restraints' 'balance of Convenience' 'delay']

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

Application for Restraints by Former Employer Including Injunction to Restrain Employment / Interlocutory Application; Orders Made as Final Disposal of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had a sufficiently strong case that the businesses of the plaintiff and People Telecom Limited were competitive in the relevant sense under clause 7.4(g).' 'Whether the balance of convenience justified restraining the first defendant from performing services for People Telecom Limited.' 'Whether delay in seeking interlocutory relief affected the grant of an employment restraint.' 'What costs orders should be made where four restraints were consented to and the contested employment restraint was refused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The employment restraint was refused because, although there was a serious question to be tried, the evidence that the plaintiff's business and People Telecom Limited's business were relevantly competitive and that the first defendant was engaged in a competitive area was confusing, inconclusive and weak; the plaintiff would have the protection of four other restraints; the first defendant's relationship with People Telecom Limited had existed for months with the plaintiff's knowledge and without objection; and the delay in seeking relief weighed against the balance of convenience.

Court Disposition

Application for injunction to restrain employment of first defendant refused; four other restraints made by consent; proceedings otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The defendants were restrained from publishing, disclosing, using or reproducing any confidential information of the plaintiff within the definition of confidential information in clause 1.1 of the Consultancy Agreement dated 16 March 2007 between the plaintiff and the second defendant, without limitation of...