5 Aug 2014
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted and the approved question for appeal is whether the payment for the restraint of trade covenant is relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, or alternatively should be treated as relationship property under s 9(4)(a).
30 Aug 2013
The Court held that the RoT payment constituted property but was predominantly payment for the husband's personal goodwill (separate property) and not relationship property under s 8; however a portion attributable to past performance and not merely forward‑looking compensation should be treated as relationship property under s 9(4) and quantified by further evidence; the 1984 transfer of shares to the MLT Trust did not defeat any preexisting right to the $8m payment for the appellant so s 44C does not apply
1 Jun 2011
The Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction under s66 to hear an appeal from the High Court's reservation of the costs question because the reservation was ancillary and not a final determination of rights; alternatively, the High Court rightly exercised its discretion to defer determination of indemnity costs until resolution of substantive issues and the contractual clause did not fix timing for enforcement.
25 Jun 2010
Although the plaintiff demonstrated a serious question to be tried and a strong case on the facts and law, the Court, by the narrowest margin, declined to grant an interim injunction because of the balance of convenience and overall justice given the short remaining restraint period, the impact on innocent third parties and adequacy of proposals (undertakings and monitoring) to mitigate risk while preserving the plaintiff's substantive rights.