Woolworths v Banks [2007] NSWSC 45

Woolworths v Banks [2007] NSWSC 45

The application failed because Woolworths did not establish a strong case that Myer was a "Competitive Business" within cl 10. There was no serious question to be tried on product-market competition between Big W and Myer, and although there may have been a serious question about competition for particular retail sites, Woolworths' case was weak, especially because validity was to be assessed as at August 2006 and the evidence then suggested distinct space requirements. Since interlocutory relief would effectively determine the dispute, the balance did not justify granting it. In addition, Woolworths did not make good a case that the cl 10 restraint was reasonably necessary to protect...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Employment Restraint of Trade Proceeding / Application for Interlocutory Injunction by Notice of Motion Filed on 18 January 2007
Outcome
Woolworths' claim for an interlocutory injunction failed; the notice of motion was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'confidential Information' 'post Employment Restraint' 'competitive Business' 'balance of Convenience']
['employment Law' 'equity' 'restraint of Trade'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'confidential Information' 'post Employment Restraint' 'competitive Business' '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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Employment Restraint of Trade Proceeding / Application for Interlocutory Injunction by Notice of Motion Filed on 18 January 2007

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Woolworths had made out a serious question to be tried that Myer was a "Competitive Business" as defined in the service agreement.' 'Whether Mr Banks was carrying on, or was engaged in, any competitive business as to the existence of which there was a serious question to be tried.' 'Whether the protection offered by cl 10 was reasonable having regard to the alleged danger of misuse of confidential information and to cl 5.' 'Whether, if there were a serious question to be tried as to "Competitive Business", the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction.' 'Discretionary issues, including alleged delay in seeking relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because Woolworths did not establish a strong case that Myer was a "Competitive Business" within cl 10. There was no serious question to be tried on product-market competition between Big W and Myer, and although there may have been a serious question about competition for particular retail sites, Woolworths' case was weak, especially because validity was to be assessed as at August 2006 and the evidence then suggested distinct space requirements. Since interlocutory relief would effectively determine the dispute, the balance did not justify granting it. In addition, Woolworths did not make good a case that the cl 10 restraint was reasonably necessary to protect...

Court Disposition

Woolworths' claim for an interlocutory injunction failed; the notice of motion was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Order that the notice of motion filed on 18 January 2007 be dismissed.' 'Direct the parties to bring in by 10 am tomorrow draft short minutes of order proposing orders and directions for the further conduct of the proceedings.' 'The Court will in due course hear the parties on costs.']