For now, a solar sales lead keeps his job with a rival

Robert Reed came to Australia from South Africa in 2018, with sales experience in the spice industry and no local work history. One Stop Warehouse, a solar panel wholesaler, hired him in July 2018 and promoted him twice; by January 2022 he was responsible for all of its sales in Western Australia. His 2020 contract paid a $50,000 base salary plus bonuses, and restrained him from competing with OSW or approaching its clients after he left.
He resigned in January 2023, turned down offers of more pay to stay, and started at rival Go Solar on about 2 March 2023. A new contract OSW had sent him came back signed, but with 'N/A' written beside its restraint clauses, changes he later apologised to OSW's HR manager for. For this hearing both sides accepted that the 2020 contract applied. OSW's lawyers wrote to him on 2 March and kept negotiating, but it did not apply for an injunction until 11 May.
Justice Seaward made only an interim decision and did not decide the case finally. OSW was entitled to some protection of its client connections, the judge said, but its case for a 12-month or six-month ban was weaker. Although OSW had not been idle, Mr Reed had been at Go Solar for almost two and a half months, OSW's prices changed monthly, and any information he had was losing value. He was not paid like a top executive, had limited ability to negotiate the clauses, and might struggle to find other work in Western Australia if barred from the solar industry.
The court refused the injunction and sent the case to a quicker trial, after mediation. It relied partly on a written undertaking Mr Reed gave the court not to misuse OSW's confidential information and not to approach its staff or several named high-value clients. That was not the end of the dispute: OSW's claim for damages went on.
An employer that waits weeks to go to court may find a judge unwilling to stop you working, especially where a long ban would cause real hardship. But a refused interim order is not a win on the restraint: the employer can still press a claim for damages.
This was an interim decision; the court did not decide whether the restraints were valid. A later ruling, One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd v Reed [No 2] [2023] WASC 422 (6 November 2023), shows OSW's damages claim was still running. No final judgment was found.
A published decision of the Supreme Court of Western 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