Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young - [2022] NSWSC 1016

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young [2022] NSWSC 1016
Hearing dates: 22 July 2022
Decision date: 28 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Decline to grant leave to plaintiff to amend Commercial List Statement as proposed; plaintiff granted leave to circulate a further proposed Amended Commercial List Statement

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – whether plaintiff should have leave to amend its Commercial List Statement – whether List Statement should be struck out

Cases Cited:
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Pittmore Pty Ltd v Chan; Chan v Tan (2020) 104 NSWLR 62; [2020] NSWCA 344
SWM Financial Services Pty Ltd v Lloyd [2011] NSWSC 1108

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Curve Securities Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Alexander Young (First Defendant)
Ord Minnett Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Fernon SC (Plaintiff)
P Zielinski (First Defendant)
A Gandar (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Hitch Advisory (Plaintiff)
Tom Howard Legal (First Defendant)
Lander & Rogers (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2021/103525

Judgment

The plaintiff, Curve Securities Pty Ltd, and the second defendant, Ord Minnett Limited, are competitors in the market of trading fixed rate financial investments. The first defendant, Mr Alexander Young, was, until August 2020, the Associate Director Interest Rate Markets at Curve. Since September 2020, Mr Young has been employed by Ord Minnett as a Fixed Interest Advisor. Mr Young’s role at Ord Minnett is substantially the same as was his role at Curve.
Curve alleges that, in the course of his employment with Ord Minnett, Mr Young has:

approached, solicited and accepted Curve’s clients;

disclosed and used confidential information obtained in the course of his employment with Curve; and

commenced his new employment in direct competition with Curve.

Curve alleges that Mr Young has taken these steps in contravention of restraints and non-disclosure clauses in his employment contract and in breach of his contractual, equitable and fiduciary duties to it.
Curve also alleges that Ord Minnett is, on various bases, accessorily liable to Curve for Mr Young’s conduct.
There has been discovery before evidence in the course of which Ord Minnett has produced some 5,000 documents relating to 118 former clients of Curve that the parties referred to as the “Relevant Clients”. As I understand it, it is common ground that the Relevant Clients are now clients of Ord Minnett and that Mr Young approached those clients, identified them to Ord Minnett, introduced them to Ord Minnett or won or procured them as clients for Ord Minnett. The question is whether Mr Young did so in breach of his contractual and other duties to Curve.
By Notice of Motion filed on 2 June 2022, Curve seeks to amend its Summons and Commercial List Statement. By Notice of Motion filed on 16 June 2022, Ord Minnett seeks an order that Curve’s List Statement be struck out.
Argument proceeded before me on the basis of a refined form of proposed Amended List Statement that was annexed to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 1016
Decision Date: 28 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young involved a dispute in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Curve Securities, sought to amend its Commercial List Statement to include new claims. The defendant, Young, argued that the plaintiff should not be granted leave to amend its statement and that the new claims should be struck out. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend its statement and, if so, whether the new claims should be included in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend its Commercial List Statement to include new claims. The court considered the relevant legal principles and precedents regarding the amendment of pleadings in the Federal Court. The court also examined the circumstances of the case to determine whether the amendment would cause any prejudice to the defendant and whether the new claims were relevant to the existing proceedings.

The court held that the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend its Commercial List Statement. The court found that the proposed amendments were relevant to the existing proceedings and did not cause any prejudice to the defendant. The court also found that the new claims were not an attempt to introduce new causes of action but were rather an extension of the existing claims. Therefore, the court ruled that the plaintiff should be allowed to amend its statement to include the new claims.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff was granted leave to amend its Commercial List Statement to include the new claims. The court also ordered that the defendant's application to strike out the new claims be dismissed. The case highlights the importance of considering the relevance and potential prejudice of proposed amendments when determining whether to grant leave to amend a pleading in the Federal Court.

Orders