Rohrlach v Qantas: Contempt of Court for Breach of Restraint of Trade Injunction

In Rohrlach, Nicolas Robert Adam v Qantas Airways Ltd and Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore found the plaintiff, Nicolas Rohrlach, in contempt of court for breaching an injunction related to a restraint of trade provision in his employment contract with Qantas. The court determined that Rohrlach had violated the injunction by engaging in activities that directly involved him in the business of Virgin Australia. The court ordered Rohrlach to pay a fine of S$25,000, with a default term of one week's imprisonment if the fine is not paid.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Order of committal granted; Plaintiff to pay a fine of S$25,000 within two weeks, with a term of one week’s imprisonment in default of payment.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Oral Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Nicolas Rohrlach, former Qantas employee, found in contempt of court for breaching an injunction related to a restraint of trade provision.

1.7 Decision Date

2 December 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Rohrlach, Nicolas Robert Adam	Plaintiff	Individual	Order of committal granted	Lost	Clarence Ding Si-Liang of JWS Asia Law Corporation Darren Low Jun Jie of JWS Asia Law Corporation Mohammed Reza s/o Mohammed Riaz of JWS Asia Law Corporation
Qantas Airways Limited	Defendant	Corporation	Order of committal granted	Won	Vincent Leow of Allen & Gledhill LLP Chan Tai-Hui Jason SC of Allen & Gledhill LLP Koh Zhen-Xi, Benjamin of Allen & Gledhill LLP Tan Xue Yang of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Clarence Ding Si-Liang	JWS Asia Law Corporation
Darren Low Jun Jie	JWS Asia Law Corporation
Mohammed Reza s/o Mohammed Riaz	JWS Asia Law Corporation
Vincent Leow	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Chan Tai-Hui Jason SC	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Koh Zhen-Xi, Benjamin	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Tan Xue Yang	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff was a former employee of Qantas Airways Limited.
Plaintiff's employment contract contained a six-month restraint of trade provision.
Plaintiff resigned from Qantas to join Virgin Australia as CEO of Velocity.
Plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the Restraint of Trade Provision is unenforceable.
Qantas sought and obtained an injunction against the plaintiff.
Plaintiff introduced the CEO of PredictiveHire to the Head of People Experience at Virgin Australia.
Plaintiff was involved in discussions regarding the recruitment of an ex-Qantas employee at Virgin Australia.

5. Formal Citations

Rohrlach, Nicolas Robert Adam v Qantas Airways Ltd and another, Suit No 221 of 2021 (Summons No 4350 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 281

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-11-06	Plaintiff was offered a senior leadership role in Qantas Loyalty.
2020-11-19	Plaintiff accepted the senior leadership role in Qantas Loyalty.
2020-12-18	Plaintiff gave notice of his resignation.
2021-03-01	Plaintiff filed Suit 221 seeking a declaration that the Restraint of Trade Provision has no legal effect.
2021-04-07	The 1st defendant filed HC/SUM 1582/2021, seeking an injunction against the plaintiff.
2021-04-29	Court ordered an injunction against the plaintiff until the final determination of Suit 221 or 17 September 2021.
2021-05-25	Plaintiff sent a WhatsApp message to Magdic.
2021-05-25	Plaintiff sent an email to Magdic introducing him to Barb Hyman.
2021-06-09	Virgin Australia published a news release stating the plaintiff was a member of Virgin Australia’s Executive Leadership Team.
2021-06-25	Lawson sent Hrdlicka an email regarding Baart.
2021-06-27	Hrdlicka forwarded Lawson’s email to the plaintiff and Burquest.
2021-06-27	Plaintiff replied to Hrdlicka regarding meeting Baart.
2021-07-02	Plaintiff had a web meeting with Baart.
2021-08-23	The 1st defendant filed HC/SUM 3954/2021 for leave to apply for an order of committal against the plaintiff.
2021-09-15	Court granted leave to the 1st defendant.
2021-09-16	The 1st defendant filed HC/SUM 4350/2021 seeking an order of committal against the plaintiff.
2021-11-12	Court heard SUM 4350.
2021-12-03	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court found the plaintiff in contempt of court for breaching the injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of Injunction
  - Mens Rea
Sentencing for Contempt of Court
- Outcome: The court ordered the plaintiff to pay a fine of S$25,000.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Appropriate Fine
  - Imprisonment Term

8. Remedies Sought

Order of Committal
Fine
Imprisonment

9. Cause of Actions

Contempt of Court

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Employment Litigation

11. Industries

Aviation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 828	Singapore	Cited for the principles on establishing contempt of court, specifically the necessary mens rea.
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited regarding ambiguity in court orders and the need for clarity in defining the scope of an injunction.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v Aurol Anthony Sabastian	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for sentencing principles in contempt of court cases, including the attitude and motive behind the contemptuous behavior.
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 105	Singapore	Cited for sentencing principles in contempt of court cases, specifically regarding failure to attend EJD hearings.
Tahir v Tay Kar Oon	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 296	Singapore	Cited for sentencing principles in contempt of court cases, specifically regarding failure to attend court hearings and provide answers to an EJD questionnaire.
Tay Kar Oon v Tahir	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 342	Singapore	Cited for factors considered in sentencing for contempt of court, including purging of contempt and prejudice suffered by the applicant.
OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 60	Singapore	Cited for sentencing principles in contempt of court cases, specifically regarding failure to comply with Mareva injunctions.
Mok Kah Hong v Zheng Zhuan Yao	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the factors relevant to sentencing in contempt of court cases, including prejudice to the applicant and the contemnor's culpability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Restraint of Trade Provision
Injunction
Contempt of Court
Order of Committal
Mens Rea
Executive Leadership Team
Velocity
AI Recruitment

15.2 Keywords

Contempt of Court
Injunction
Restraint of Trade
Employment
Qantas
Virgin Australia

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contempt of Court	95
Sentencing Principles	60
Restraint of Trade	40
Judgments and Orders	30
Civil Procedure	30
Contract Law	20
Employment Law	20

16. Subjects

Contempt of Court
Employment Law
Civil Procedure