Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="lynx000, post: 3219251, member: 2065"] You pretty much have it right. As is always the case with this thing, it is hard to say anything when you do not have a copy of the contract to read all of the clauses in context. As I have said previously, the only possible cause of action that the Storm could have against Brisbane would be a tort of inducing a breach of contract. It is not something that is run very often these days. So the action would be between Storm and Donaghy. As I understand it, his contract had in fact come to an end, so it would be one more clauses that continue to operate post employment, and a non-compete clause is one of these. They would not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Donaghy was in breach of a clause, beyond reasonable doubt is the criminal standard of proof. They would have to establish on the balance of probabilities that he was in breach of the contract (that is, more likely than not) and therefore should be restrained. As I have indicated before, the way this would usually play out is that the Storm would seek an interim injunction to restrain Donaghy from acting in breach of the contract. That is where Donaghy woud get to argue that the clause is unlawful and therefore inoperative. If he wins at that stage and there is no injunction, he is right to start. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 114 (members: 0, guests: 114)