LAPORTE GROUP AUSTRALIA LTD v VATSELIAS [1993] NSWCA 156

LAPORTE GROUP AUSTRALIA LTD v VATSELIAS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, CLARKE and MEAGHER JJA 10, 11 December 1992, 9 February 1993

[1993] NSWCA 156

RESTRAINT OF TRADE — INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS — ABUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — the appellants brought proceedings arising out of the setting up, by former officers of the appellant, of a rival business — they claimed the conduct of the respondents was in breach of a covenant in restraint by trade or, in the case of other respondents, amounted to the tort of interference with contractual relations and that the new business involved an abuse of confidential information belonging to the old business — the grounds of appeal were based mainly on errors of fact said to have been made by the trial judge and erroneous inferences as to the nature and scope of the arrangements relating to the new business — HELD — the challenges to the factual findings had been made good and therefore the scope of the relief that had been granted to the appellants at first instance should be widened.

Gleeson CJ The appellant company, the plaintiff before Young J in the Equity Division, sought injunctive relief and damages against the various respondents, alleging breaches of contract, wrongful interference with contractual relations, and misuse of confidential information. The appellant succeeded to a certain extent, but that success was relatively limited, and it brings this appeal seeking to widen the relief granted to it.

The respondents are a number of persons who were formerly associated with a business acquired by the appellant, and companies controlled by those persons. It is alleged that the respondents set up a rival business and that, in so doing, the first respondent, Mr Vatselias, was in breach of an agreement restricting his activities after leaving the business acquired by the appellant. It is also alleged that the other individual respondents induced him to act in breach of his contract, and that all the respondents made improper use of trade secrets of the appellant.