Stacks Taree v Marshall [2010] NSWSC 34

Stacks Taree v Marshall [2010] NSWSC 34

A restraint limited to solicitation of clients of the firm for whom the defendant performed work in the twelve months prior to termination, for a period of twelve months, is justifiable and enforceable; a blanket covenant against all competition in the area is not reasonably necessary and is unenforceable in these circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Stacks/Taree Pty Limited; Defendant: Anthony John Marshall
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Restraint of Trade, Contract of Employment, Solicitation of Clients, Competition, Validity of Covenant, Duration of Restraint, Severability
Employment Law Equity Restraint of Trade Contract of Employment Solicitation of Clients Competition Validity of Covenant Duration of Restraint +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stacks/Taree Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Anthony John Marshall

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restraint of trade clause in the employment contract is valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the restraint against solicitation should be limited to clients serviced by the defendant or extended to all clients
  3. 3 Whether the blanket covenant against competitive activity is reasonably necessary for the protection of the plaintiff's legitimate interests

Ratio Decidendi

A restraint limited to solicitation of clients of the firm for whom the defendant performed work in the twelve months prior to termination, for a period of twelve months, is justifiable and enforceable; a blanket covenant against all competition in the area is not reasonably necessary and is unenforceable in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay 80 per cent of defendant's costs of the proceedings.
  • Exhibit DX1 to be handed back; other exhibits to remain with the papers.