Aland Care Pty Ltd v Pollard

In the matter of Aland Care Pty Ltd versus Pollard, the plaintiff, a company engaged in the management of building facilities, sought to restrain the defendant, a former employee, from disseminating disparaging materials about the plaintiff to its clients. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant had breached a non-disparagement clause in his employment contract and was threatening to distribute further defamatory content. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant had already circulated disparaging materials that risked damaging the plaintiff's reputation and client relationships.

The court had to determine whether an interlocutory injunction should be issued to prevent the defendant from disseminating or distributing any copies of the disparaging materials or from inducing any client to terminate or not renew any contract with the plaintiff. Additionally, the court considered whether suppression and non-publication orders should be made under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) to prevent the disclosure of building management agreements between the plaintiff and various owners corporations. The plaintiff argued that the confidentiality of these agreements was essential to protect its business interests and that disclosure could cause significant harm.

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the alleged breaches of the non-disparagement clause and the potential for ongoing harm to the plaintiff's business. The court also accepted that the building management agreements contained confidential information that should be protected from disclosure. As such, the court granted the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction and made suppression and non-publication orders to prevent the defendant from disseminating the disparaging materials and to protect the confidentiality of the building management agreements until the final hearing of the proceedings. The court emphasised the need to balance the interests of both parties and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the plaintiff's business operations.