Veda Advantage (Australia) Pty Ltd v de Beer [2016] NSWSC 37

Veda Advantage (Australia) Pty Ltd v de Beer [2016] NSWSC 37

Clause 8.1 was supported by consideration and, on its proper construction, D&B NZ carried on a business substantially similar to Veda Australia's data analytics business, so Mr de Beer's employment with D&B NZ would breach the clause apart from public policy. However, the restraint was reasonable only as a six-month restraint applying in Australia, because the protectable confidential information and customer connections related to Veda Australia's Australian business and did not justify restraining employment in New Zealand. Read down in that way, no threatened breach was shown because there was no evidence Mr de Beer would be employed within Australia during the restraint period. No...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Seeking Injunctive Relief Enforcing Post Employment Restraints of Trade, With Damages Also Claimed But Not Heard / Final Hearing of the Plaintiff's Application for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
The Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was dismissed, with the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs of and incidental to the application.
Legal Topics
['injunctions in Aid of Restraints of Trade' 'post Employment Restraint Clauses' 'confidential Information' 'customer and Employee Non Solicitation Restraints' 'restraints of Trade Act 1976 (nsw)']
['equity' 'employment Law' 'contract Law' 'restraint of Trade'] ['injunctions in Aid of Restraints of Trade' 'post Employment Restraint Clauses' 'confidential Information' 'customer and Employee Non Solicitation Restraints' 'restraints of Trade Act 1976 (nsw)']

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

Equity Proceeding Seeking Injunctive Relief Enforcing Post Employment Restraints of Trade, With Damages Also Claimed But Not Heard / Final Hearing of the Plaintiff's Application for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether cl 8.1 of the employment contract was breached by Mr de Beer's employment with D&B NZ, independently of public policy considerations" 'Whether the restraint in cl 8.1 was contrary to public policy or could be read down under the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW)' 'Whether Veda Advantage established a threatened or actual breach of restraints against soliciting customers or employees in cll 8.3 and 8.5' 'Whether discretionary factors including hardship and delay affected the grant of injunctive relief']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 8.1 was supported by consideration and, on its proper construction, D&B NZ carried on a business substantially similar to Veda Australia's data analytics business, so Mr de Beer's employment with D&B NZ would breach the clause apart from public policy. However, the restraint was reasonable only as a six-month restraint applying in Australia, because the protectable confidential information and customer connections related to Veda Australia's Australian business and did not justify restraining employment in New Zealand. Read down in that way, no threatened breach was shown because there was no evidence Mr de Beer would be employed within Australia during the restraint period. No...

Court Disposition

The Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief was dismissed, with the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs of and incidental to the application.

Orders

  • ["Order that the Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief be dismissed." "The Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs of and incidental to the application."]