Lawyers for litigation

Moroney v TM Insight Operations Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1337

Moroney v TM Insight Operations Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1337

CONTRACTS – restraint of trade – where restraints in shareholders agreement and employment agreement contain cascading provisions in relation to restraint duration and restraint area – whether restraints are void for uncertainty – whether restraints are reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests of first and fifth respondents – HELD: restraints valid to an extent


Recent cases about restraint of trade

  • Moroney v TM Insight Operations Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1337

    CONTRACTS – restraint of trade – where restraints in shareholders agreement and employment agreement contain cascading provisions in relation to restraint duration and restraint area – whether restraints are void for uncertainty – whether restraints are reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests of first and fifth respondents – HELD: restraints valid to an extent

  • Pennytel Australia Pty Limited v Engelke [2025] FCA 1384

    CORPORATIONS – whether first and second defendants contravened ss 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by misusing their position as employees by taking confidential information – whether third defendant was a person involved as an accessory in any contraventions – finding on the facts that no contraventions occurred CONTRACT – whether original…

  • Blue Rock Australia PL v Kaushik [2025] FCA 176

    PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for urgent injunctive relief – where respondent a former employee of applicant’s – where employment contract contained restraint clause prohibiting post-employment solicitation of clients – where respondent tendered resignation to commence employment with applicant’s competitor – where applicant seeks injunction to prevent solicitation of clients – enforceability of covenants…

Original article available at: https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2025/2025fca1337For more information, see the original judgement.
Send this to a friend