NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: UP Australia Pty Ltd v McDonald & Anor [2018] NSWSC 218 Hearing dates: 21 February 2018 Date of orders: 23 February 2018 Decision date: 28 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Slattery J Decision: Interlocutory injunctions granted against both defendants. Matter referred to Expedition List on 2 March 2018. Catchwords: EQUITY - interlocutory injunctions - serious question to be tried - balance of convenience - interests associated with the first defendant to sell a gym business to the plaintiff - second defendant is employed as a mentor within the gym business from the time of the sale - post-sale restraints agreed to by the first defendant - second defendant leaves the employment of the plaintiff and proposes to work for first defendant - whether first defendant's business competes with the plaintiff's business - whether the second defendant's proposed employment with the first defendant should be restrained pending final hearing. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 26 Supreme Court Act 1970, s 66(4) Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Beecham Group Limited v Bristol Laboratories Pty Limited (1968) 118 CLR 618 Beese v Woodhouse [1970] 1 WLR 586 Buckley & Ors v Tutty (1971) 125 CLR 353 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Birt & Ors [2006] NSWSC 995 Kearney v Craepoldi & Ors [2006] NSWSC 23 Kores Manufacturing Co Ltd v Kolok Manufacturing Co Ltd [1959] Ch 108 Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 McCarty v Council of the Municipality of North Sydney (1918) 18 SR (NSW) 210 Stacks Taree v Marshall (No. 2) [2010] NSWSC 77 Trego v Hunt [1896] AC 7 Texts Cited: JD Heydon, MJ Leeming and PG Turner, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's Equity: Doctrines & Remedies (5th ed 2014, LexisNexis Butterworths) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Plaintiff: UP Australia Pty Ltd First Defendant: Daine McDonald Second Defendant: Mark Carroll Representation: Counsel:
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate