UP Australia Pty Ltd v McDonald & Anor [2018] NSWSC 218

UP Australia Pty Ltd v McDonald & Anor [2018] NSWSC 218

Interlocutory injunctions were granted because there was a serious question to be tried as to the enforceability and reasonableness of restraints binding the defendants. The balance of convenience favoured granting injunctions, as damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the potential loss of goodwill and misuse of confidential information, and workable undertakings from the defendants were insufficient to adequately protect the plaintiff’s interests pending final hearing.

Parties
Plaintiff: UP Australia Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Daine McDonald; Second Defendant: Mark Carroll
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory (injunctive Relief, Before Final Hearing)
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctions granted against both defendants; proceedings referred to mediation and expedition list.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Restraint of Trade, Employment Restraints, Goodwill Restraints, Confidential Information, Balance of Convenience
Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Restraint of Trade Employment Restraints Goodwill Restraints Confidential Information Balance of Convenience

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UP Australia Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Daine McDonald

First Defendant

Mark Carroll

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Interlocutory (injunctive Relief, Before Final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted to restrain the defendants' activities pending trial
  2. 2 Whether the restraints sought against the first and second defendants are enforceable
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy in lieu of injunctive relief

Ratio Decidendi

Interlocutory injunctions were granted because there was a serious question to be tried as to the enforceability and reasonableness of restraints binding the defendants. The balance of convenience favoured granting injunctions, as damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the potential loss of goodwill and misuse of confidential information, and workable undertakings from the defendants were insufficient to adequately protect the plaintiff’s interests pending final hearing.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctions granted against both defendants; proceedings referred to mediation and expedition list.

Orders

  • First defendant and his associates are restrained from engaging the services of the second defendant until further order of the Court.
  • Second defendant is restrained, subject to further order and until 18 June 2018, from soliciting employees, clients or suppliers of the plaintiff with whom he has had contact in the previous 12 months; from dealing with such clients as an employee; from being involved in competing businesses within a three kilometre...