Background
Alanna Short resigned from Stryker Australia Pty Ltd after working in its medical-technology business, most recently as an “Executive Territory Manager – Endoscopy.” Her sales territory covered parts of Queensland and northern New South Wales. She accepted a position with Fortress Surgical Pty Ltd, a start-up that Stryker alleged competed with its business.
Stryker sought an interlocutory injunction preventing Short from commencing work at Fortress, relying on a post-employment restraint that potentially operated for up to 12 months across Australia. Short offered undertakings concerning confidential information and other contractual restraints, including restrictions relating to specified customers, suppliers, and employees. The remaining dispute was whether she should be restrained from taking up the Fortress position at all.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Freeburn dismissed Stryker’s application, subject to Short’s undertakings. Although Stryker had an arguable case for enforcing the restraint, the clause was broad and there was a strong argument that it extended beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect Stryker’s legitimate business interests. In particular, it could prevent Short from working for another medical-equipment business because of only peripheral involvement with a competing product during the preceding two years.
The balance of convenience also weighed against an injunction. The overlap between Stryker’s and Fortress’s relevant businesses appeared modest; Short had sold only endoscopy products, while the identified overlapping products were not products she had sold. Stryker identified no specific confidential information she was positioned to exploit, her role did not appear managerial, and other representatives were already servicing her former territory. By contrast, preventing her from joining Fortress could leave Short, her family’s principal breadwinner, without income, and her commission-based loss would be difficult to quantify. Costs were reserved.
Key Takeaways
- An employer seeking to enforce a post-employment restraint must show that it provides no more than adequate protection for a legitimate business interest.
- Broad restrictions triggered by indirect or peripheral involvement with competing products may face substantial enforceability difficulties.
- On an interlocutory application, the court weighs the strength of the restraint case together with practical harm, including whether narrower undertakings already protect the employer.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the difficulty of obtaining urgent relief that effectively prevents a former employee from earning a living, particularly where the alleged competitive overlap and confidential-information risk are limited or described only generally.
Employers should tailor restraints to the employee’s actual duties, customers, products, territory, and access to sensitive information. Narrow undertakings may adequately protect legitimate interests without imposing a complete prohibition on employment.