Restraint of Trade and Misuse of Confidential Information in Mortgage Broking Industry
📌 In brief
In this case, the court ruled that the defendant had breached the plaintiff's confidentiality by using their client list after leaving the company. The defendant was ordered to stop using the list and pay damages.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The defendant's admissions about the lists he kept and used confirmed they were part of the plaintiff's client list.
- The client list is considered the plaintiff's copyright material, making its retention a breach of contract.
- Human authorship was involved in developing the client list information, regardless of its storage in an online database.
- The defendant breached the contract by accepting approaches from nine clients who were existing clients of the plaintiff.
- The contractual clauses restricting the defendant's work after termination are not considered cartel provisions under the CCA.
- The clauses restricting the defendant's work are reasonable and protect the plaintiff's legitimate business interests.
- The loans should be categorized as 'Referrals from the director' for calculating damages.
- The plaintiff would have received 100% trail commission for the loans if the defendant had not interfered.
- The most appropriate method for estimating future upfront commission is to average the commission received over several months.
- The plaintiff was entitled to 100% of the trail commission for the loans, not 60%.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The defendant's argument that there was no legitimate interest supporting the restraint on trade was rejected.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The court decided that the defendant breached the plaintiff's confidentiality by using their client list after leaving the company.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the defendant had misused the plaintiff's client list after leaving the company.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the defendant had breached the plaintiff's confidentiality because he used the client list after leaving the company, which was in violation of the sub-origination agreement and an equitable duty of confidence.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most important argument was that the defendant had breached the plaintiff's confidentiality by using the client list after leaving the company.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the plaintiff.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they do not misuse confidential information after leaving a company, as they could face legal consequences.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included the sub-origination agreement, the client list, and witness statements from both parties.