DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited v United Workers' Union

DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Limited sought an interlocutory injunction against the United Workers' Union and two individuals, Chris Dundon and Imogen Beynon, to prevent them from obtaining or using certain information. The dispute centred on allegations that the respondents were involved in obtaining or using information that had been improperly acquired, potentially in breach of sections 182(1) and 183(1) of the Corporations Act 2001, and that they had induced breaches of contract by procuring the disclosure of confidential information. The applicants argued that the respondents had acted tortiously and in breach of the Corporations Act, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting injunctive relief.

The court considered the threshold requirements for interlocutory relief, including whether there was a prima facie case that the respondents had acted tortiously or in breach of the Corporations Act. The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a sufficiently strong case to warrant the grant of interlocutory relief, particularly given the potential for irreparable harm if the respondents were not restrained from using the contested information. The court also considered the balance of convenience, concluding that it favoured the applicants, as the respondents' use of the information could cause significant harm to the applicants' business interests and reputation.

Based on the findings, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondents from using, copying, publishing, distributing, disclosing or otherwise disseminating any information contained in completed or partially completed "Union Forms" they possessed. The court also ordered the respondents to deliver up and destroy all copies of these forms and any materials derived from them, except for any "Unnecessary Information" which could be redacted. Additionally, the first respondent was required to notify its delegates employed by DHL Supply Chain of the court's orders. The costs of the interlocutory application were ordered to be costs in the cause.

The orders included specific timelines for compliance and detailed the form of notice to be provided to the respondents' delegates. Service of the application and supporting affidavits was also adjusted to facilitate timely compliance with the court's orders.