In the context of a sale of a professional practice with an accompanying service agreement, non-solicitation restraints on clients and employees may be enforceable even where broader geographical restraints are void as unreasonable. A 'no less favourable' clause in a service agreement must be construed by reference to the whole of the relevant comparison agreement, not by aggregating individually favourable terms from multiple agreements. In 'no transaction' misleading and deceptive conduct claims, a comparative cash flow analysis based on hypothetical scenarios not supported by evidence is not an appropriate basis for proving loss; the conventional date of transaction valuation approach may be required.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.