The Court granted interim injunctions restraining a former employee/franchisee from using a client leads list, soliciting customers and staff, and competing within 5 kilometres of the plaintiff's premises, but declined to grant the broader 15-kilometre non-compete restraint sought. The Court held that the discrepancy between the 5-kilometre restraint area in the franchise deed and the 50-kilometre area in the employment agreement gave rise to a strong argument that the broader restraint was not reasonably necessary and therefore void, weakening the plaintiff's case for a wider interim non-compete injunction. The Court also found that the plaintiff and its related entities probably lacked sufficient resources to satisfy the usual undertaking as to damages in respect of the serious harm that would be caused to the second defendant's business by the broader restraint, which was a significant factor weighing against its grant.
The full text is available to signed-in members.