Austin Engineering Ltd v Podulova (No 3)

In the Federal Court of Australia, Austin Engineering Ltd has brought a proceeding against Ms Podulova and six other respondents, collectively referred to as Schlam. Austin alleges that Ms Podulova, a former employee, breached confidentiality obligations and infringed copyright by misusing confidential and commercially sensitive information belonging to Austin (Austin information). Austin further alleges that Ms Podulova began working for Schlam, a competitor, shortly after leaving Austin’s employment. The Court issued Norwich Pharmacal orders restraining Ms Podulova from using the Austin information and requiring Schlam to disclose information about the storage and handling of this information.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Court should vary interlocutory consent orders to allow certain documents to be disclosed to specific individuals within Austin and whether further and better particulars should be provided to the second to seventh respondents regarding the nature of the alleged damage, loss, and the conduct causing such damage or loss. The Court also considered an application to strike out certain paragraphs of the statement of claim.

The Court allowed the application to amend the interlocutory application, varying the confidentiality undertakings to permit disclosure of certain documents to Ms Kirsten Cadle and Mr David Singleton of Austin, subject to them signing confidentiality undertakings. The Court dismissed the application for further and better particulars, finding that the existing particulars were sufficient. It also dismissed the application to strike out certain paragraphs of the statement of claim. The Court found that the particulars provided were adequate and that the allegations were sufficiently specific to allow the respondents to respond effectively.

The final orders of the Court included permission for Austin to amend its interlocutory application, variations to the confidentiality undertakings to allow certain documents to be disclosed to Ms Cadle and Mr Singleton, and dismissal of the respondents' applications for further and better particulars and to strike out certain paragraphs of the statement of claim, with costs reserved.