Cedar Hill Flowers & Foilage P/L & Anor v Spierenburg & Ors [2002] QCA 348
[2002] QCA 348
Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-09-06|Before: McMurdo P, Williams JA and Wilson JSeparate reasons, for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders, made
McMurdo P, Williams JA and Wilson JSeparate reasons, for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders, made
Catchwords
TRADE AND COMMERCE – RESTRAINT OF TRADE – RESTRAINT BY
AGREEMENT – VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS – REASONABLENESS
–
where appeal from decision of learned trial judge granting former
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
TRADE AND COMMERCE – RESTRAINT OF TRADE – RESTRAINT BYAGREEMENT – VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS – REASONABLENESS–where appeal from decision of learned trial judge granting formeremployer/respondents injunctive relief and common law damagesagainst the formeremployee/appellant for misuse of confidential information and breach ofrestraint of trade covenants in his employmentcontract - whether the covenantsare enforceable and if so whether the appellant was in breach thereofTRADE AND COMMERCE – RESTRAINT OF TRADE – RESTRAINT BYAGREEMENT – VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS – IN PARTICULARCASES - INCONTRACT FOR SERVICE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where business carriedon in competition by respondent was unlicensedand therefore illegal - whetherthe validity of the restraint provisions were determinable by whether theappellant had an unlawfulor illegitimate competing business – whetherlearned trial judge erred by not applying the Nordenfelt test at the time
the contract was entered into before the issue of the subsequent conduct of the
appellant
TRADE AND COMMERCE – RESTRAINT OF TRADE – RESTRAINT BY
AGREEMENT – ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT – REMEDIES FOR
BREACH OF
AGREEMENT – where common law damages awarded at first instance for breach
of contract – where on appeal retrial
ordered on question of validity of
covenants – where injunction ordered at first instance but no equitable
damages ordered
for breach of confidential information – whether damages
assessable on appeal
Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571, followedBuckley v Tutty
[1971] HCA 71
(1971) 125 CLR 353, followed Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Harpers Garage
(Stourport) [1967] UKHL 1
[1968] AC 269, consideredGledhow Auto Parts Ltd v
Delaney [1965] 1 WLR 1366, followedHoward F Hudson Pty Limited v
Ronayne [1972] HCA 3
(1971) 126 CLR 449, consideredLindner v Murdock’s
Garage [1950] HCA 48
(1950) 83 CLR 628, followedMason v Provident Clothing and
Supply Company Limited [1913] AC 724, followedMorris v Saxelby
[1916] 1 AC 688, followedNordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and
Ammunition Company [1894] AC 535, followedPeters (WA) Ltd v
TRADE AND COMMERCE - RESTRAINT OF TRADE - RESTRAINT BY AGREEMENT - VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS - REASONABLENESS - where appeal from decision of learned trial judge granting former employer/respondents injunctive relief and common law damages against the former employee/appellant for misuse of confidential information and breach of restraint of trade covenants in his employment contract - whether the covenants are enforceable and if so whether the appellant was in breach thereof TRADE AND COMMERCE - RESTRAINT OF TRADE - RESTRAINT BY AGREEMENT - VALIDITY AND REASONABLENESS - IN PARTICULAR CASES - IN CONTRACT FOR SERVICE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where business carried on in competition by respondent was unlicensed and therefore illegal - whether the validity of the restraint provisions were determinable by whether the appellant had an unlawful or illegitimate competing business - whether learned trial judge erred by not applying the Nordenfelt test at the time the contract was entered into before the issue of the subsequent conduct of the appellant TRADE AND COMMERCE - RESTRAINT OF TRADE - RESTRAINT BY AGREEMENT - ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT - REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF AGREEMENT - where common law damages awarded at first instance for breach of contract - where on appeal retrial ordered on question of validity of covenants - where injunction ordered at first instance but no equitable damages ordered for breach of confidential information - whether damages assessable on appeal Attwood v Lamont[1920] 3 KB 571, followed