1A post-employment covenant restraining a former employee from working for a competitor for a short period may be enforced because of the practical difficulty of policing the use of confidential information carried in the employee's head. A former employee's undertakings not to misuse confidential information or customer connections do not, without more, answer the employer's interest in that bargained-for protection.
2For a senior executive possessed of strategic confidential information and key client relationships, the risk of even innocent misuse in high-level decision-making at a competitor, and the employer's loss of its contractual protection against that risk, may constitute prejudice not adequately remediable in damages. On the facts, this favoured the balance of convenience despite several weeks' delay, partly attributable to the applicant.
3Under pt VAA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), commercially sensitive information may be suppressed where its disclosure would make litigation a vehicle for competitive advantage, thereby prejudicing the proper administration of justice. Personal sensitivity about remuneration, address or financial circumstances does not suffice. An unevidenced assertion of safety risk does not suffice either. The question is not whether publication is necessary to serve justice, but whether suppression is necessary to prevent an identified prejudice.
