Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young (No 2) - [2022] NSWSC 1436

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1436
Hearing dates: 14 October 2022
Date of orders: 21 October 2022
Decision date: 21 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Equity - Commercial List
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Plaintiff granted leave to amend its 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

Legislation Cited:
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Chen v Golden Land Enterprises Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 19
Commissioner for Corporate Affairs v Green [1978] VR 505
Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young [2022] NSWSC 1016
Forkserve Pty Ltd v Jack [2000] NSWSC 1064
In the matter of Colorado Products Pty Ltd (in prov liq) [2014] NSWSC 789
Jack Brabham Engines Limited v Beare [2010] FCA 872

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

File Number(s): 2021/103525

Judgment

The background to this matter is set out in my judgment of 28 July 2022.^[1] I shall use the same abbreviations here.
1. Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young [2022] NSWSC 1016.
To repeat, Curve and Ord Minnett are competitors in the market of trading fixed rate financial investments. Mr 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 (described as “Curve’s Business 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 accordance with what Curve alleges to be an “Arrangement”^[2] entered into with Ord Minnett while he was still in employment with Curve, in contravention of restraints and non-disclosure clauses in his employment contract and in breach of his contractual, equitable and fiduciary duties to Curve.
2. To which I return below.
Curve also alleges that Ord Minnett is, on various bases, accessorily liable to Curve for Mr Young’s conduct.
There has been discovery prior to evidence in the course of which Ord Minnett has produced some 5,000 documents relating to 118 former clients of Curve, referred to by the parties as the “Relevant Clients”. 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.
By Notice…

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 (No 2) 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 1436
Decision Date: 21 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Curve Securities Pty Ltd v Young (No 2) involved a dispute in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Curve Securities Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, sought leave to amend its Commercial List Statement in order to address deficiencies identified by the defendant, Young. Young argued that the List Statement should be struck out due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the requirements of the court's procedural rules. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend its List Statement and, if not, whether the List Statement should be struck out entirely.

The court examined the procedural rules and precedents relevant to amendments of List Statements in the Federal Circuit and Family Court. It noted the importance of ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to understand and respond to the claims and defences in a case. The court also considered the circumstances under which leave to amend might be granted, including whether the amendment would prejudice the other party and whether the amendment was sought promptly. After weighing these factors, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient grounds for granting leave to amend its List Statement and, consequently, the List Statement was struck out.

In its decision, the court found that the plaintiff's failure to adequately address the deficiencies in its List Statement, despite being given an opportunity to do so, justified the striking out of the List Statement. The court emphasised the need for parties to comply with procedural rules to ensure the efficient administration of justice. As a result of the court's decision, the List Statement was struck out, and the case proceeded without the plaintiff's amended statement.

Orders