| Summary |
INJUNCTION - Applicant sought interim orders prohibiting respondents from breaching obligation of loyalty and fidelity and to enforce restraints of trade - Authority found arguable case first respondent still bound by obligation of loyalty and fidelity, despite assertion applicant repudiated employment agreement - Authority found second respondent’s notice period expired so no longer bound by obligation of loyalty and fidelity - Respondents claimed restraint of trade clause overly harsh and therefore void - Applicant conceded terms of restraint too broad but urged Authority to modify clause rather than decline to enforce it - Respondents claimed applicant must establish second respondent was in position to develop relationships with applicant’s clients during employment and had access to confidential material such as client lists properly belonging to applicant - Respondents denied had access to applicant’s database and client lists - Authority found affidavits in response from applicant clearly stated that was not the case - Authority found applicant established had arguable case - Towards end of interim hearing, respondents each tabled undertakings - Applicant indicated had no confidence in undertakings given - Respondents claimed undertakings given voluntarily and to give applicant some comfort pending hearing of substantive issues - Authority found was multi-faceted case with few issues agreed between parties - Found to maintain equilibrium between parties until substantive investigation, undertakings given by respondents to become interim orders of Authority - Authority also ordered neither respondent to use any information, regardless of how obtained, held or known, relating to applicant’s clients until further order of Authority - Interim orders replaced Authority’s earlier orders |