Effective restraints clauses can be relied to protect legitimate business interests . . . at this stage
Despite recent commentary indicating other international jurisdictions are considering ‘outlawing’ restraints of trade a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (click here) enforced a 12-month restraint period against a manager and required him to pay $500,000 damages to his former employer after soliciting 45 clients to a rival competitor.? ?
The court took into account that the former employee had been engaged to grow the business, had significant client contact during and after business hours and in practical terms was the face of his former employer’s business in initially providing an injunction and then taking further enforcement action.
Out Take ?
We genuinely support an employer’s entitlement to protect legitimate business interests.? ?
An employee generally takes none of the financial risks that the employer’s owners personally do in creating and maintaining ongoing client relationships.??Employees generally receive a wage and/or performance bonuses for their work and ultimately shouldn’t be able to simply ‘take’ their employer’s business with them so that they can personally benefit themselves and/or another employer for something that they didn’t genuinely create.? ?
A restraint doesn’t prohibit the former employee from fairly and genuinely competing ‘forever’.??Rather a restraint simply gives the former employer ‘time’ to protect and/or consolidate their client interest.??If the clients then leave the former employer after the ‘protected time period’ - we agree they are ‘fair game‘ for the former employee and the market at large.
领英推荐
?
Action Items ?
Edge Legal
Relationships.??Respect.??Results
CEO at Tasmanian Oyster Co | Driving Growth with Financial Expertise
1 周Thanks for sharing David - always topical!