Restraint Clauses: Case Study

867 Words2 Pages

A)
ISSUE:
Is the restraint clause preventing X from setting up a competing business within the Adelaide central business district enforceable?

LAW:
All restraint of trade clauses are prima facie void at common law in the interest of public policy. For a restraint of clause to be valid, the party relying on the clause must be able to show that the restraint is reasonable in terms of the geographical extent of the restraint, the time period involved, the bargaining strengths and position of the parties during negotiation; and the type of business and the activity being restrained (Gibson & Fraser 2013).
A restraint clause in relation to the protection of trade connections is only reasonable if it reflects the extent of contact and influence that the employee has had with the client (Gibson & Fraser 2013).
A restraint of trade clause is reasonable if it enables the company to protect its business interests notwithstanding the time frame (Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Ltd [1894] AC 535).
The business activity being restrained must be of a nature to protect the employer's proprietary interests (Forster & Sons Ltd v Sugget (1918) 35 TLR 87).
A restraint of trade clause intended to prevent an employee taking with them to a competing business intimacies and knowledge from their previous employer, will give that …show more content…

It would be reasonably foreseeable that if she did open a competing business in the same operating area as ABC Accounting she would be in direct competition with ABC Accounting. More to the point she intends to inform the clients she dealt with whilst working at ABC Accounting of her new business in the hope of luring them away. The restraint of trade clause would be reasonable as it is intended to protect ABC Accounting's proprietary interests (Nordenfelt v Maxim 1894, Forster & Sons v

Open Document