Lyreco Pty Ltd v Schoolworks Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1184

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Lyreco Pty Ltd v Schoolworks Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 1184

HEARING DATE(S) : 17 October 2006

JUDGMENT DATE : 20 October 2006

JURISDICTION : Equity

JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J

DECISION : Interlocutory injunctions granted to restrain breaches of restrictive provisions in contracts of employment.

CATCHWORDS : TRADE AND COMMERCE [28] - Trade and commerce generally - Restraint of trade - Restraint by agreement - Enforcement of agreement - Remedies for breach of agreement - Right to injunction - Interlocutory injunction - Whether injunction may be granted to restrain use of confidential information, solicitation of employees and employment by competitor.

Barrett v Ecco Personnel Pty Ltd NSWCA 24 November 1998 unreported Cactus Imaging Pty Limited v Glenn Peters [2006] NSWSC 717 CASES CITED : Corporate Express Australia Ltd v Swift-McNair [1998] NSWSC 593 John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Birt [2006] NSWSC 995 Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 Koops Martin v Dean Reeves [2006] NSWSC 449

Lyreco Pty Limited (P) PARTIES : Schoolworks Australia Pty Limited (D1) John David Ayres (D2) Glenn Fabian (D3)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5179/06

COUNSEL : J R Clarke (P) B J Sharpe (Ds)

SOLICITORS : Eakin McCaffery Cox (P) Ward Legal (Ds)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

FRIDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2006

5179/06 LYRECO PTY LIMITED v SCHOOLWORKS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED & ORS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff is in the business of distribution of office supplies to businesses in all States and Territories of Australia. The products supplied by the plaintiff include stationery, paper, photocopier cartridges, pads and foodstuffs. One part of the plaintiff's business is the supply and distribution of office supplies to schools, especially throughout Victoria. The plaintiff, through its Education Division, supplies products to approximately 1,200 schools on a regular basis and, of those 1,200, the plaintiff supplied approximately 540 schools with "back to school" supplies for the current 2006 school year. Many of the schools supplied are in the Melbourne metropolitan area. 2 The second and third defendants are former senior employees of the plaintiff. The second defendant was employed in the position of Product Manager and had the primary day to day responsibility for dealing with the plaintiff's suppliers throughout Australia. By one month's notice he terminated his employment with the plaintiff on 23 June 2006. The third defendant was employed in the position of Sales Manager - Education and was responsible for the overall day to day management of the plaintiff's Education Division and a team of eight sales representatives. By one month's notice he also terminated his employment with the plaintiff on 23 June 2006. 3 The plaintiff's evidence demonstrates, and there was no serious contest, that: