Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Qantas Airways Limited v Nick Rohrlach [2021] NSWSC 260 Hearing dates: 16 March 2021 Decision date: 19 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List Before: Hammerschlag J Decision: (1) The plaintiff's motion filed 5 March 2021 is dismissed (2) These proceedings are stayed until further order Catchwords: CONTRACT – Exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of Singapore in an employment contract between the plaintiff and the first defendant – Post-employment restraint covenant – The plaintiff and first defendant later executed a further agreement relating to an overseas employment assignment under the original employment contract and requiring the first defendant to execute a Deed Poll containing a further post-employment restraint covenant – The plaintiff gave notice of resignation and plans to commence employment with the second defendant, one of the plaintiff's competitors – Plaintiff seeks to enforce Deed Poll restraint covenant in this Court – First defendant has commenced proceedings in Singapore for a negative declaration that he is not bound by the restraint – First defendant seeks a stay of these proceedings in this Court – Plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the first defendant from moving the Singapore for an injunction to restrain the proceedings in this Court – HELD – The proceedings in this Court should be stayed because they are covered by the exclusive jurisdiction clause and there are not strong reasons why it should not be enforced – The plaintiff's claim for an anti-anti-suit injunction is to be dismissed Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87 Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418 Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99 Australian Health and Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 419 Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes v Wilson (1954) 94 CLR 577 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 Electricity Generation Corporation Ltd v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640 FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd (1997) 41 NSWLR 117 Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) (2010) 267 ALR 144 Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) (2010) 79 ACSR 383 Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship "Mill Hill" (1950) 81 CLR 502 Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp [2005] FCA 191 McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579 Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197 Owners of Cargo lately laden on board ship or vessel Eleftheria v The Eleftheria (Owners) [1969] 2 All ER 641 Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 522 Zhu v Treasurer of the State of New South Wales (2004) 218 CLR 530 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Qantas Airways Limited - Plaintiff Nick Rohrlach - First Defendant Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd - Second Defendant Representation: Counsel: M Izzo SC with S Meehan – Plaintiff Y Shariff SC with C Brown and V Bulut – First Defendant J Darams – Second Defendant Solicitors: Minter Ellison – Plaintiff Seyfarth Shaw – First Defendant Gilbert + Tobin – Second Defendant File Number(s): 2021/63788 JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION 1. HIS HONOUR: Before the Court are two applications: 1. one by the plaintiff (Qantas or the Company) for an anti-anti-suit injunction restraining the first defendant (Rohrlach or the Employee) from moving the Singapore High Court for an order restraining Qantas from prosecuting proceedings which it has commenced in this Court against Rohrlach and the second defendant (Virgin); and 2. one by Rohrlach to stay the proceedings in this Court. 1. In the proceedings in this Court, Qantas seeks to enforce against Rohrlach a restraint covenant, and it makes a claim against Virgin for interference with contractual relations. 2. For his part, Rohrlach has commenced proceedings in the High Court of Singapore seeking a negative declaration that he is not bound by the restraint (the Singapore Proceedings). He has joined Virgin as a defendant, although they are in the same interest. 3. References to "the proceedings" will be, unless the context otherwise indicates, references to the proceedings in this Court. 4. The applications were heard together. 5. They largely turn on whether an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the written employment agreement dated 17 December 2015, under which Qantas employed Rohrlach in the position of "Executive Manager Strategy and Customer – Jetstar" (the Agreement), captures the proceedings. 6. Qantas argues that the clause does not apply to its claim against Rohrlach. If this is correct, Rohrlach accepts that Qantas is entitled to succeed in its application and Rohrlach's application for a stay must fail. 7. If, however, the exclusive jurisdiction clause does cover Qantas' claim, Qantas accepts that it should be enforced unless there are strong reasons why it should not be. Qantas argued, albeit faintly, that there are such strong reasons. 8. For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that Qantas' claim is caught by the exclusive jurisdiction clause and that it should be enforced. Accordingly, Qantas' application will be dismissed and the proceedings in this Court will be stayed until further order. THE FACTS The Employment Agreement 1. By letter dated 17 December 2015, Qantas offered Rohrlach a formal offer of employment. The offer was made expressly conditional on Rohrlach signing the Agreement, which he did. His starting salary and other benefits under the Agreement were not insignificant. His employment also made him eligible for incentive opportunities, including the acquisition of rights over shares in Qantas which is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. 2. Clause 1.6 of the Agreement, read with Item 11 of Schedule 1, records that Rohrlach was initially to be based in Singapore. Until late-2017, he was based in Singapore. 3. Clause 13 includes a post-employment restraint of six months, or three months from the date the employment contract comes to an end. In it, the employee acknowledges that the restraints are reasonable and are not greater than is necessary to protect the Qantas group. Qantas initially did, but does not now, rely on this provision. Clause 13.4(e) provides that Qantas holds the benefit of the clause on trust for the other members of the Qantas Group. 4. The exclusive jurisdiction clause is to be found in cl 16.1 of the Agreement, which provides: 16.1 Law This agreement is governed by the law in force in Singapore. The parties agree to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Singapore. [emphasis added] 1. Clause 17.1 defines "Qantas Group" as follows: Qantas Group means: (a) Qantas; (b) any related body corporate (as that term is defined in the Corporations Act); (c) any entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Qantas; (d) any other entity that is connected with Qantas or any other member of the Qantas Group by a common interest in an economic enterprise, for example, a partner or another member of a joint venture. The Assignment Letter 1. On 6 September 2017, Qantas offered Rohrlach an "overseas assignment" in Japan on terms and conditions in a letter (the Assignment Letter) and a Restraint Deed Poll (the Deed Poll). 2. Rohrlach signed his acceptance of the Assignment Letter on 8 November 2017. He did not formally execute the Deed Poll but accepts that he is bound by its terms. 3. He moved to Japan. His designation was "Chief Executive Adviser and Executive Director, Jetstar Japan". 4. Paragraph 1 of the Assignment Letter provides: 1. RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTING EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT During the period of the Assignment, you will continue to be employed by us, on the terms and conditions of your existing Home Location employment contract as amended from time to time ("Employment Contract"), and as varied by this Assignment Letter. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of your Employment Contract and the terms of this Assignment Letter, the terms of this Assignment Letter will prevail to the extent of such inconsistency. 1. Paragraph 5 provides: 5. TERM Subject to any earlier termination in accordance with clause 14 or this clause, the Assignment will end on the date set out in Item 5 of Annexure 2 to this Assignment Letter, unless we mutually agree to extend. The Assignment can only be extended up to a total period of 5 years. If either of us wishes the Assignment to continue beyond 5 years, it is likely that you will be required to permanently transfer to local employment arrangements. You should also understand that, due to our future requirements or developments beyond our control, we may need to end the Assignment early. If we need to end the Assignment early, we will provide you with at least 4 weeks' notice unless otherwise agreed. 1. Paragraph 14 includes the following: 14. TERMINATION OF THE ASSIGNMENT … If your employment terminates, you will be subject to any post employment obligations under your Home Location contract of employment and the Deed Poll in Annexure 4 (unless we agree otherwise). In these circumstances, the post employment restraints in each document will operate independently of one another and are not intended to limit the operation of the other. 1. Paragraph 18 provides: 18. VARIATION AND ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Assignment Letter may only be varied or replaced by agreement in writing signed by you and an authorised representative on our behalf. This Assignment Letter, read in conjunction with your Employment Contract, embodies the entire understanding and agreement between you and us as to the terms of the Assignment. All previous negotiations, understandings, representations, warranties, or commitments in relation to the Assignment are superseded by this Assignment Letter. 1. Paragraph 19 provides: 19. APPLICABLE LAWS Except for the Deed Poll in Annexure 4 which will be governed by the laws in the Host Location, this Assignment Letter will be governed by the laws of the place nominated in the Applicable Laws clause contained in your Employment Contract. In the event that disputes arise in respect of this Assignment Letter, these laws will take precedence over the laws of any other jurisdiction. The Deed Poll 1. The Deed Poll, in its entirety, appears as a Schedule to these reasons. For convenience, the following provisions in it are set out here: For the benefit of the Qantas Group as follows: (a) Qantas Airways Limited ("Qantas"); (b) any related body corporate (as that term is defined in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)) of Qantas; (c) any entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Qantas; (d) any other entity that is connected with Qantas or any other member of the Qantas Group by a common interest in an economic enterprise, for example, a partner or another member of a joint venture.\ … 4 Post employment restraint Except with prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer of the business unit you were working in, you must not, for a period of six months after your employment ends, be directly or indirectly engaged, concerned or interested in, or provide services (as an employee or contractor) to, any business or activity in competition with the Qantas Group: (a) in any capacity similar to the role or roles held by you at any time during the 12 month period immediately prior to the end of your employment; or (b) in any capacity or role in which you may be able to make use of the Confidential Information to the detriment of any member of the Qantas Group. … 6 General (a) Each restraint contained in clauses 3 and 0 [sic] of this Deed Poll constitutes a separate and independent provision, severable from other restraints. If a court of competent jurisdiction finally decides that any such restraint is unenforceable in whole or in part, the enforceability of the remainder of that restraint provision and any other restraint will not be affected. (b) Qantas recommends that you obtain independent legal advice about this Deed Poll, and you acknowledge having had a reasonable opportunity to obtain such advice. (c) The terms of this Deed Poll will be governed by the laws of Japan. 7 Definitions … (b) Any defined terms not defined in this Deed Poll have the meaning set out in the Assignment Letter. Rohrlach's Employment Ends 1. On 18 December 2020, intending to join Virgin (one of Qantas' competitors), Rohrlach gave notice of his resignation. He was placed on so-called "gardening leave" until 17 March 2021, when his employment ended. He has said that he will not start with Virgin before 3 May 2021. 2. On 15 January 2021 Qantas wrote to Rohrlach and Virgin, expressing concern about Rohrlach's proposed commencement with Virgin. Qantas demanded that, in accordance with the restraints, Rohrlach not commence with Virgin until 18 September 2021. 3. At that time, Qantas was relying on both the restraint in the Agreement itself and the restraint in the Deed Poll. I interpolate that it is plain that the exclusive jurisdiction clause covers a claim for enforcement of the restraint in the Agreement itself. This, it may safely be inferred, is why Qantas no longer seeks to rely on that restraint. 4. By letter dated 21 January 2021, Rohrlach denied the restraints are enforceable. By letter dated 29 January 2021, Qantas foreshadowed commencing the proceedings if undertakings were not received. By letter dated 25 February 2021, Qantas indicated it would commence the proceedings if appropriate undertakings were not received by 1 March 2021. 5. On 1 March 2021, Rohrlach commenced the Singapore Proceedings by suing out a Writ of Summons in that jurisdiction. 6. On 5 March 2021, Qantas commenced these proceedings by approaching the Commercial List Duty Judge, Stevenson J. His Honour granted an injunction, until further order, restraining Rohrlach from taking any step in the Courts of Singapore to restrain or seek to restrain the prosecution by the plaintiff of these proceedings. THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES 1. At this point it is appropriate to set out, albeit briefly, the legal principles which apply to construing the exclusive jurisdiction clause, to the grant of an anti-suit injunction, and to the ordering of a stay. Construction 1. The question of whether the submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Singapore in cl 16.1 applies to proceedings brought to enforce the restraint in the Deed Poll, is one of contractual construction. Strictly, under the terms of the Agreement, this falls to be determined according to the laws of Singapore. However, the parties do not suggest that applying the laws of Singapore would yield a different result from that which results from applying the laws of this State. 2. In a commercial contract, the meaning of the words chosen by the parties is determined objectively by reference to its text, context, and purpose, the question being what a reasonable person would have understood them to mean. Preference is given to a construction supplying a congruent operation to the various components of the whole and so as to avoid commercial inconvenience. Where language is open to more than one construction, the Court will prefer a construction which avoids consequences which are capricious, unreasonable, inconvenient or unjust: see Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99 at 109; McCann v Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd (2000) 203 CLR 579 at 589 [22]; Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 at [22]; Zhu v Treasurer of the State of New South Wales (2004) 218 CLR 530 at 559 [82]; Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 522 at 528 [15]; Electricity Generation Corporation Ltd v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640 at [35]; Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 at 117. 3. Although the Agreement, Assignment Letter, and Deed Poll provide for and concern employment, they have an undoubtedly commercial flavour. 4. The remuneration and other benefits are significant and Rohrlach's employment makes him eligible for significant potential incentives including receiving shares. There are provisions, including the restraints, which are manifestly intended to protect Qantas' commercial interests. 5. I do not think that the proper construction of the exclusive jurisdiction clause is to be approached any differently from the way that it would be approached if those instruments were strictly commercial arrangements. In any event, the contestants did not suggest otherwise. Some other approach which would lead to a different result is not readily identifiable. 6. In the well-known passage in Francis Travel Marketing Pty Ltd v Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 160 at 165, Gleeson CJ said: When the parties to a commercial contract agree, at the time of making the contract, and before any disputes have yet arisen, to refer to arbitration any dispute or difference arising out of the agreement, their agreement should not be construed narrowly. They are unlikely to have intended that different disputes should be resolved before different tribunals, or that the appropriate tribunal should be determined by fine shades of difference in the legal character of individual issues, or by the ingenuity of lawyers in developing points of argument. 1. This approach applies equally to the construction of an exclusive jurisdiction clause: Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) (2010) 79 ACSR 383 at 398 [60] (Babcock & Brown). 2. On its proper interpretation, an exclusive jurisdiction clause may bind a party with respect to proceedings against a non-party: Babcock & Brown at 400 [71]-[72]. Stays and Anti-Suit Injunctions 1. Section 67 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) confers on the Court a power to stay proceedings. The power is expressed in discretionary terms, but it is a discretion that must be exercised judicially and in accordance with established principles: Babcock & Brown at [81]. 2. Where parties to a contract have agreed by an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court, such a clause does not operate to exclude the forum court's jurisdiction. However, the court will hold the parties to their bargain, and grant a stay of proceedings, unless the party seeking that the proceedings be heard can show that there are strong reasons against doing so. There is a strong bias in favour of granting a stay of proceedings in the event that there has been a submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign forum. In considering such an application the court should take into consideration all the circumstances of the particular case, but the application is not to be assimilated to cases where a stay is sought on the principle of forum non conveniens, nor is it a matter of mere convenience: see Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 87 at 97; Huddart Parker Ltd v Ship "Mill Hill" (1950) 81 CLR 502 at 508–9; Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197; FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd (1997) 41 NSWLR 117; Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co Ltd (1996) 188 CLR 418; Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corp [2005] FCA 191; Owners of Cargo lately laden on board ship or vessel Eleftheria v The Eleftheria (Owners) [1969] 2 All ER 641 at 645; Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes v Wilson (1954) 94 CLR 577 at 582, 585 and 589–91; Global Partners Fund Ltd v Babcock & Brown Ltd (in liq) (2010) 267 ALR 144 at 166 [118]; Babcock & Brown at [81]. See more recently: Australian Health and Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd (2019) 99 NSWLR 419 at 438 and following. 3. The power to grant an anti-suit injunction is an aspect of the power which authorises the Court to stay its own proceedings. In some cases, the power to grant anti-suit injunctions should not be exercised without the Court concerned first considering whether its own proceedings should be stayed: CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345 at 390 (Cigna). The counterpart of the Court's powers to prevent its own processes from being abused is its power to protect the integrity of those processes once set in motion. In some cases it is that counterpart power of protection that authorises the grant of anti-suit injunctions: Cigna at 391. The inherent power to grant anti-suit injunctions is not confined but is to be exercised when the administration of justice demands it, or where an anti-suit injunction is necessary to protect the Court's own procedures or processes: Cigna at 392. 4. In addition, in the exercise of the power deriving from the Chancery Court, the Court may make orders in restraint of unconscionable conduct or the unconscientious exercise of legal rights. Thus, if there is a contract not to sue, an injunction may be granted to restrain proceedings brought in breach of that contract, whether in Australia or abroad. Similarly, an injunction may be granted in aid of a promise not to sue in a foreign jurisdiction, constituted for example by an agreement to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the forum: Cigna at 392. DECISION Construction 1. The thrust of Qantas' argument is that whilst it accepts the exclusive jurisdiction clause binds Qantas and Rohrlach in relation to the Agreement and the Assignment Letter, it puts that it does not apply to enforcement of the Deed Poll. 2. It argues that the Deed Poll is a self-contained instrument which stands apart from the Agreement and the Assignment Letter. It points to the fact that some of the persons who are intended to be beneficiaries of the Deed Poll (i.e. members of the Qantas Group) are not themselves parties to the other instruments. 3. It argues that the Deed Poll does not incorporate the terms of the other instruments or provide that they govern its operation. 4. It argues that there is no sensible reason to apply the exclusive jurisdiction clause, which is in an instrument governed by the laws of Singapore, whereas the Deed Poll is governed by the laws of Japan. It argues that the parties would not have expected the original clause to apply where Singapore law no longer applies. 5. These submissions are unsustainable. 6. The Deed Poll is not a standalone instrument. It is one of a coherent and congruently operating suite of three agreements. 7. The opening paragraph of the Assignment Letter provides that the assignment is on the terms and conditions of the letter and the Deed Poll. Clause 1 of the Assignment Letter expressly provides that Rohrlach will continue to be employed on the terms and conditions of the Agreement as varied by the Assignment Letter. Paragraph 14 of the Assignment Letter records that Rohrlach will be subject to any post-employment obligations under the Agreement and the Deed Poll. By paragraph 7(b) of the Deed Poll, definitions in the Assignment Letter are incorporated in the Deed Poll. 8. The Deed Poll has independent binding effect in its own right, but as between Qantas and Rohrlach, the Assignment Letter itself provides that he will be subject to the restraints in the Deed Poll, and it is not in issue that the exclusive jurisdiction clause covers the Assignment Letter. 9. There is no real constructional choice to be made here. Clause 16.1 of the Agreement is an agreement in unrestricted terms to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of Singapore. This clause was part of the offer which Qantas made. It may be inferred that it saw the submission as being in its commercial interests. 10. The submission that Qantas' construction is supported by the fact that the Deed Poll is for the benefit of non-party beneficiaries is undermined by the facts that each of those beneficiaries is a Qantas associate and that the Agreement itself provides that the restraints in it are for the benefit of the Qantas Group (which is defined in not dissimilar terms in the Deed Poll). 11. The submission that the choice of Japanese law in the Deed Poll supports Qantas' construction is undermined by the fact that the Deed Poll contains no submission to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Japan. 12. One consequence of upholding Qantas' construction is that there would be a binding submission to jurisdiction for one part of the party's contractual dealings but none in relation to another part. Qantas could not sue anywhere but in Singapore under the Employment Contract, but could go elsewhere, as it seeks to here, if it sued exclusively under the Deed Poll. This gives rise to incongruent operation between different components of one overall contractual arrangement. Added to this, it is unlikely that they intended that different disputes should be resolved before different tribunals or that there should be a firm jurisdictional choice for one category of dispute while leaving another dispute about the same subject matter (a restraint) at large. 13. The result is that, in my view, the exclusive jurisdiction clause applies to the claim which Qantas seeks to make in the proceedings. Enforcement 1. The starting point is that Qantas and Rohrlach should be held to their bargain unless there are strong reasons for not doing this. 2. Qantas put the following as reasons not to enforce the clause: 1. the choice of jurisdiction by the parties is not a clear one; 2. the causes of action have no connection with Singapore and all the parties are in Australia; 3. the proceedings will have to be conducted remotely and the parties will be separated from their lawyers; 4. this Court is in a position to give the parties a final hearing earlier than what would appear to be the position in Singapore. Qantas adduced expert evidence that the likely approach of the Singapore Court would be that Qantas should seek interim injunctions to protect the position before allocating a final hearing; and 5. there may be difficulties experienced in enforcing in Australia injunctions which the Singapore Court might make. 1. I do not find these reasons convincing: 1. the choice of jurisdiction is clear; 2. there is no challenge to the jurisdiction of Singapore. That the causes of action may have no connection with that jurisdiction has little to say as to the appropriateness of enforcing an express submission to jurisdiction. It is to be remembered that the restraint upon which Qantas relies is governed by the laws of Japan; 3. that the proceedings have to be conducted remotely and that the parties will be separated from their Australian lawyers are matters of mere inconvenience. Remotely conducted proceedings have been the order of the day for more than a year now; 4. both Rohrlach and Virgin have undertaken to this Court that they will cooperate fully with Qantas in seeking to have the proceedings in Singapore conducted expeditiously. There is every reason to be confident that the Courts of Singapore will dispose of the proceedings no less efficiently than would this Court, whatever the procedure that Court considers is the appropriate one to be followed. I record that I informed the parties that I was in a position to fix the matter for final hearing on an estimate of three days on 27 April 2021. I fixed the matter provisionally to start at that time to protect the position on the contingency that Qantas succeeded, given the heavy demands on the Commercial List diary. That provisional fixture will be vacated; and 5. both Rohrlach and Virgin have undertaken to this Court (which undertakings the Court accepts) that they will comply with any orders of the Singapore Court as if they were orders of this Court. These proceedings will be stayed until further order with liberty to apply on seven days' notice, which will facilitate enforcement of the undertakings should that transpire to be necessary. In addition, Virgin has undertaken that it will formally consent to the jurisdiction of the Singapore Court in the Singapore proceedings in which, if Qantas wishes to enforce the Deed Poll and claim damages against Virgin, it will bring cross-claims. CONCLUSION 1. The plaintiff's motion filed 5 March 2021 is dismissed. 2. These proceedings are stayed until further order with liberty to apply on seven days' notice. 3. The injunction ordered on 5 March 2021 is dissolved. 4. I provisionally order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the first defendant and the second defendant of these proceedings. This order will solidify seven days after the publication of these reasons unless a party notifies my Associate and the other parties in writing that some different order is sought, stating, in brief terms, the reasons why, in which event I will make directions for disposition of any issues as to costs. 5. The exhibits are to be returned. SCHEDULE ANNEXURE 4 – RESTRAINT DEED POLL Deed dated __________________ By: Nick Rohrlach of [ ] For the benefit of the Qantas Group as follows: (a) Qantas Airways Limited ("Qantas"); (b) any related body corporate (as that term is defined in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)) of Qantas; (c) any entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with Qantas; (d) any other entity that is connected with Qantas or any other member of the Qantas Group by a common interest in an economic enterprise, for example, a partner or another member of a joint venture. 1 Background You have agreed to the terms and conditions of the Assignment set out in the Assignment Letter. As a condition of the Assignment, you are also required to execute this deed poll ("Deed Poll"). 2 Obligations under your Employment Contract The obligations set out in this Deed Poll are in addition to the post-employment restraints set out in your Employment Contract, which continue to apply. The restraints in this Deed Poll and your Employment Contract operate independently of one another and are not intended to limit the operation of the other. 3 Non-solicitation Except with prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer of the business unit you were working in, you must not for a period of 12 months after your employment ends, either on your own account, or jointly with any other person, or through any other person or entity: (a) solicit, persuade or induce or attempt or prepare to solicit, persuade or induce from any person or entity who or which was or is a client, customer or supplier of the Qantas Group with whom you had dealings at any time within the 12 months immediately prior to the end of your employment, to cease doing business with the Qantas Group, reduce the amount of business which the person or entity would normally do with the Qantas Group, or divert any new business from the person or entity away from the Qantas Group; or (b) induce or attempt or prepare to induce any director, employee, agent or contractor of the Qantas Group, to terminate their employment or relationship with the Qantas Group, whether or not that person would commit a breach of that person's contract of employment. 4 Post employment restraint Except with prior written consent of the Chief Executive Officer of the business unit you were working in, you must not, for a period of six months after your employment ends, be directly or indirectly engaged, concerned or interested in, or provide services (as an employee or contractor) to, any business or activity in competition with the Qantas Group: (a) in any capacity similar to the role or roles held by you at any time during the 12 month period immediately prior to the end of your employment; or (b) in any capacity or role in which you may be able to make use of the Confidential Information to the detriment of any member of the Qantas Group. 5 Restraints reasonable You acknowledge and agree that: (a) Prior to and during your Assignment you will acquire significant commercially sensitive information about the business (including, but not limited to corporate plans, budgets and prospective financial information), have access to Confidential Information and develop relationships with customers, clients, suppliers, directors, employees, agents and contractors. Accordingly, the restraints imposed under this Deed Poll are reasonable and not greater than are necessary to protect the Qantas Group in relation to the Confidential Information, its goodwill, relationships and legitimate business interests, and the parties intend the provisions to operate to the maximum extent possible at law. You acknowledge that damages are not an adequate remedy for the breach of this Deed Poll; and (b) You have agreed to the restraints in this Deed Poll in consideration of Qantas' agreement to offer you the Assignment (including the entitlements to the benefits and entitlements set out in the Assignment Letter). 6 General (a) Each restraint contained in clauses 3 and 0 [sic] of this Deed Poll constitutes a separate and independent provision, severable from other restraints. If a court of competent jurisdiction finally decides that any such restraint is unenforceable in whole or in part, the enforceability of the remainder of that restraint provision and any other restraint will not be affected. (b) Qantas recommends that you obtain independent legal advice about this Deed Poll, and you acknowledge having had a reasonable opportunity to obtain such advice. (c) The terms of this Deed Poll will be governed by the laws of Japan. 7 Definitions (a) "Confidential Information" means all information (whether or not it is described as confidential) in any form or medium concerning any past, present or future business, operations or affairs of the Qantas Group, or of any customer or supplier of the Qantas Group including, without limitation: (i) all technical or non-technical data, formulae, patterns, programs, devices, methods, techniques, plans, drawings, models and processes, source and object code, software and computer records; (ii) all business and marketing plans and projections, details of agreements and arrangements with third parties, and customer and supplier information and lists; (iii) all financial information, pricing schedules and structures, product margins, remuneration details and investment outlays; (iv) all information concerning any employee, customer, contractor or agent of the Qantas Group; (v) trade secrets and confidential know-how; (vi) Qantas Group policies and procedures; and (vii) all information contained in the Assignment Letter and this Annexure, but excludes information that has come into the public domain other than by a breach of your confidentiality obligations. (b) Any defined terms not defined in this Deed Poll have the meaning set out in the Assignment Letter. EXECUTED as a deed. Executed by Nick Rohrlach in the presence of __________________ Nick Rohrlach __________________ Signature of witness __________________ Name of witness (print) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 March 2021