FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Agility CIS Ltd v White [2021] FCA 1145
File number(s): VID 195 of 2021 Judgment of: ANDERSON J Date of judgment: 23 September 2021 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application pursuant to rr 16.21 and 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to strike out and/or give summary judgment in relation to parts of the applicants’ statement of claim – where the applicant alleges a misuse of confidential information – where the applicant has failed to articulate the misuse with sufficient precision – where the applicants’ claims in their current form are speculative in nature – application to strike out pleadings pursuant to r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 allowed Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Cases cited: Creative Brands Pty Ltd v Franklin [2001] VSC 338
Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Scott (No 4) (2005) 11 VR 629
Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd v The ANI Corporation Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 363
Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care Ltd [1997] RPC 289
Pioneer Concrete Services Limited v Galli (1985) VR 675
Reinforced Plastics Applications (Swansea) Limited v Swansea Plastics & Engineering Co Limited [1979] FSR 182
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations Number of paragraphs: 47 Date of hearing: 16 September 2021 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr L Merrick Solicitor for the Applicants: Corrs Chambers Westgarth Counsel for the Respondents: Mr S Rebikoff Solicitor for the Respondents: Clyde & Co ORDERS
VID 195 of 2021 BETWEEN: AGILITY CIS LTD (and another named in the schedule)
First Applicant
AND: LEE WHITE (and others named in the schedule)
First Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
ANDERSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 SEPTEMBER 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicants’ Statement of Claim dated 22 April 2021 be struck out pursuant to r 16.21 of the Rules.
2.Leave is granted for the Applicants to file an Amended Statement of Claim by 4.00 p.m. on 30 November 2021, or such other time as may be agreed by the parties
3.The Applicants pay the Respondents’ costs of the application on a lump sum basis to be agreed or in default of agreement in such lump sum as determined by a Registrar of this Court.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ANDERSON J:
Introduction
The substantive claim in this proceeding relates to the alleged misuse of confidential information by a group of former employees (Mr White (First Respondent), Mr Chandiramani (Second Respondent) and Ms Yang (Third Respondent) (together Respondents)) of Agility CIS Ltd and Agility CIS Pty Ltd (Applicants). The Fourth Respondent, Beige Technologies Pty Ltd is a company that now employs and is owned, in part, by the First to Third Respondents. The Fourth Respondent is alleged to…
Continue reading Agility CIS Ltd v White
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Agility CIS Ltd v White [2021] FCA 1145
- Case
- [2021] FCA 1145
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the applicant had failed to articulate the misuse of confidential information with sufficient precision. The claims in the statement of claim were expressed in wide and general terms, making them speculative. Specifically, the applicant did not identify the source code, supporting applications, software architecture, content and arrangement of databases, software logic, or client lists with any particularity. The further particulars provided by the applicant's solicitors were also found to be insufficiently precise. As a result, the court concluded that the applicant's claims were speculative in nature.
The court allowed the application to strike out parts of the applicant's statement of claim pursuant to rule 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. The court also granted leave for the applicant to file an amended statement of claim by a specified date, with the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The final orders of the court included the striking out of the applicant's statement of claim, granting leave for an amended statement of claim, and ordering the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Applicants’ Statement of Claim dated 22 April 2021 be struck out pursuant to r 16.21 of the Rules.
2. Leave is granted for the Applicants to file an Amended Statement of Claim by 4.00 p.m. on 30 November 2021, or such other time as may be agreed by the parties
3. The Applicants pay the Respondents’ costs of the application on a lump sum basis to be agreed or in default of agreement in such lump sum as determined by a Registrar of this Court.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The Applicants submit that the Court has ample case management powers to ensure that, as the proceeding progresses towards trial, the precise nature and extent of the Applicants’ allegations are known such that there will be at trial no doubt as to the matters to be litigated.Consideration I am not satisfied that the Applicants have identified the alleged confidential information with sufficient precision to enable the Court to identify what is sought to be protected. I am also not satisfied that the Applicants have identified the disclosure or use of that alleged confidential information which is said to constitute misuse. The Applicants’ claims, as presently pleaded, are expressed in wide and general terms such that the claims have all the hallmarks of being purely speculative claims. I am of this view for the reasons that follow. First, the Applicants have not, in their Statement of Claim, identified with sufficient precision what is alleged to constitute the confidential information. Paragraph [8(b)] of the Statement of Claim purports to identify the relevant confidential information as the “Agility Business Information” that is pleaded as including:(1)With respect to [8(b)(i)] of the Statement of Claim - “the source code of ORION and its supporting applications”. The source code is not identified nor are the supporting applications identified in the Statement of Claim. The Applicants’ solicitors’ 18 August letter purports to give further particulars but fails to identify with any particularity the source code said to comprise the confidential information.(2)With respect to [8(b)(ii)] of the Statement of Claim - “the software architecture of ORION and the relationships between its constituent software modules”. The Statement of Claim does not provide any particulars of the software architecture of ORION, nor are the relationships between constituent software modules identified. The 18 August letter which purports to provide further particulars is couched in the most general of terms and lacks the precision required to identify what constitutes the confidential information.(3)With respect to [8(b)(iii)] of the Statement of Claim - “the content and arrangement of the databases used by ORION and its supporting applications for the functioning of billing systems in the Australian energy market”. The Statement of Claim does not identify the content of the databases used by ORION. The Statement of Claim does not identify the arrangement of the databases used by ORION. The Statement of Claim does not identify the supporting applications. The 18 August letter provides some further particulars of the ORION supporting applications and the content and arrangement of the ORION databases, but only in the most general of terms.(4)With respect to [8(b)(iv)] of the Statement of Claim - “the software logic used by ORION and its supporting applications for achieving compliance with the regulatory requirements of the Australian energy market”. The Statement of Claim does not identify the software logic used by ORION. It does not identify the supporting applications for achieving compliance with the regulatory requirements of the Australian energy market. The Statement of Claim is devoid of any particulars. The 18 August letter purports to provide further particulars of the software logic for achieving compliance, however, it is couched in the most general terms. By way of example, the 18 August letter refers to the software logic as “the logic contained in ORION’s market interaction module is crucial for maintaining compliance with and adapting to changes in Australia’s various regulatory requirements in relation to the retailing of energy”.(5)With respect to [8(b)(v)] of the Statement of Claim - “client lists”. The Statement of Claim does not identify any client lists. It is devoid of any particulars. The 18 August letter does not provide any further particulars in respect to the “client lists”.