Court rules client poaching out of bounds

federal-court/director/

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has reinforced the value of employment agreements, upholding Koops Martin Financial Services’ actions to stop a former adviser from luring clients across to rival dealer group ComCorp.

“We had an employment agreement with a restraint of trade component that the employee couldn’t act for a period of 12 months to entice any clients who he had acted for in the preceding 12 months,” Koops Martin director Stuart Malouf said.

“The court held that the restraint was reasonable and fair in the judge’s summary,” he explained.

Malouf said the process employed by former Koops Martin adviser Dean Reeves was fairly active and involved activities such as advertising.

“It was only a small number of clients who started to move and we immediately commenced action [in December, 2005] and received an undertaking that ComCorp wouldn’t continue to attempt to entice clients away, and with any client that actually approached them, we would be given five days clear notice to talk to that client,” he said.

Malouf felt the decision reinforced his organisation’s professional services model, which puts the practice above each individual adviser in terms of importance.

“We’ve always marketed that the client is serviced by Koops Martin and not by the individual. If an adviser leaves then a client may meet with a new adviser, and if there is a conflict between personalities there is always another adviser available,” he said.

The ruling bolsters a recent Federal Court decision that courtesy calls made by a financial planner informing her clients of her impending departure from her current dealer group constituted “enticement pure and simple”.

In that case, Angela Manning, a former AMP planner, was found to be in breach of her fiduciary duties when she called her clients to give them her new contact details at Goldman Sachs JBWere before her employment term with AMP had finished. Eventually, 75 per cent of her clients moved with her.

However, the presiding judge ruled the plaintiff, AMP, could only recover losses relating to Manning’s four-week notice period subsequent to her resignation.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

2 months 2 weeks ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

2 months 2 weeks ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

4 months 3 weeks ago

ASIC has suspended the Australian Financial Services Licence of a Melbourne-based financial advice firm....

5 days 15 hours ago

The corporate regulator has issued infringement notices to three AFSLs whose financial advisers provided personal advice to a retail client while unregistered....

1 week 3 days ago

ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test....

2 weeks 1 day ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND