International Law

Hanna v OAMPS: post-employment restraints valid

By David Jacobson

Employers are increasingly seeking to enforce post-employment restraints. But are they valid?

In Hanna v OAMPS Insurance Brokers Ltd (ACN 005 543 920) [2010] NSWCA 267 the NSW Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the trial judge’s decision to enforce a post-employment restraint covenant for 12 months throughout Australia.

On 30 September 2008, Mr Hanna signed a written employment contract, a schedule to which contained a post-employment restraint deed. The deed contained a cascading or step clause with 9 restraints, the widest period and area being 15 months in Australia, and the narrowest being 12 months in, in Mr Hanna?s case, the metropolitan area of Sydney.

Mr Hanna was an experienced insurance broker who commenced employment with OAMPS in 1990 and resigned on 22 April 2010, having accepted an offer to work at another insurance broking firm.

The Court of Appeal decided that:

• the clause not void for uncertainty
• The restraint deed was not against public policy
• The restraint covenant was not unreasonable
• the 12 months restraint period was reasonable.

Full post as published by Australian Regulatory Compliance Review on October 28, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Employment Contracts
General Contract Law Principles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Washington Post WPO Securities Fraud
Washington Post WPO

Washington Post 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud
Washington Post 401(k) / ERISA Stock Fraud

New York Employment Law
alleged violations of New York employment law.

PTDS class action
Veterans Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Class Action

Furloughed Workers
File Employment Lawsuits

Failure-to-accommodate claim yields $1.82M award
$1.82 Million Awarded in Employment Lawsuit

Related Searches