Two advisers, a friendly text and a $270,593.60 judgment

Brett Puxty and Francis Coggan joined Monarch Advisory Group to run a new Newcastle office for the financial planning firm, whose director worked from Sydney. Mr Puxty brought clients from earlier jobs. Before he signed, the director texted him that 'if this all falls over you can transfer them back'. On 7 December 2018 both men signed contracts barring them, without Monarch's consent, from soliciting or accepting work from Monarch's clients after they left: for 12 months if they had worked there between one and two years.
Their employment ended on 31 January 2020, and by March they were trading through their own company, Odyssey. Clients wrote to Monarch asking for the two men to keep looking after them, and the men took them on. Mr Puxty said Monarch had consented in advance to him taking his clients if its partnership with a law firm's parent company fell through, as it had.
Justice Markovic disagreed. Read with the whole text exchange, 'if this falls over' referred to the men's proposed employment, not to his leaving later. His signed contract contained no carve-out for his clients. The 12-month restraint was reasonable because insurance policies renew every year, giving Monarch one cycle to cement its own connection with the clients. It did not matter that the men had stayed only just over a year, because reasonableness is judged when the contract is signed. Nor did it matter who called whom: the clause also banned accepting work.
Monarch was awarded $106,145.60 for lost profits and $194,448 for the lower price it got when it sold its business. After setting off $30,000 the court ordered Monarch to pay Mr Puxty, judgment was $270,593.60 plus $74,000 interest. The Full Court dismissed the men's appeal in June 2026.
If you are promised that you can take your clients with you, make sure that promise is written into the contract you sign. A friendly message sent during negotiations may not be read as the employer's consent, and the signed clause is what a court will enforce.
Upheld on appeal in Puxty v Monarch Advisory Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2026] FCAFC 80 (9 June 2026); Monarch had gone into liquidation after the trial judgment. The contracts were treated as governed by the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW).
A published decision of the Federal Court of Australia, retold in plain English. Lawcaptain did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. General information, not legal advice about your situation.
Talk to us.
Call 1300 967 552, or leave your details and we will call you.
Restraints and confidentiality
A $28,860-a-year sales assistant, sued over her phone contactsFederal Court of Australia · 28 November 2022Read the case study
A 17-year insider, a 'Secret Group' chat and a rival businessFederal Court of Australia · 2 July 2021Read the case study
A CFO's move to Cotton On, and a restraint naming 50 rivalsSupreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal · 20 December 2016Read the case study