Legal Research
Cases
DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe

DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe

Case [2017] NSWSC 1159 31 August 2017

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe & Ors [2017] NSWSC 1159
Hearing dates: 22, 23 and 25 August 2017
Decision date: 31 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Black J
Decision:
The Court holds that an interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining the Sixth Defendant from disclosing or using specified information of the Plaintiff until further order and an order should be made in terms of the restraint clause in the employment contract between those parties. Parties to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to this judgment.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — Equitable remedies — Injunctions – Application for interlocutory injunction restraining disclosure of confidential information – where Sixth Defendant employee of Plaintiff on gardening leave and possessed substantial volume of Plaintiff’s records

EQUITY — Breach of confidence — Springboard doctrine – whether Sixth Defendant should be restrained beyond contractual restraint period from working for a competitor of the Plaintiff – whether springboard doctrine applicable to injunction against breach of fiduciary duty
EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — Restraint of trade – whether Sixth Plaintiff should be restrained from commencing employment with a competitor of the Plaintiff – construction of clause
Legislation Cited: - Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 68
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 182–183
- Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW)
Cases Cited: - APT Technology Pty Ltd v Aladesaye [2014] FCA 966
- Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57
- Butt v Long [1953] HCA 76; (1953) 88 CLR 436
- Cactus Imaging Pty Ltd v Peters [2006] NSWSC 717; (2006) 71 NSWLR 9
- Cadgroup Australia Pty Ltd v Snowball [2016] NSWSC 22
- Del Casale v Artedomus (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 172
- Digital Pulse Pty Ltd v Harris [2002] NSWSC 33; (2002) 40 ACSR 487
- Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [1985] 1 All ER 724
- ICAP Australia Pty Ltd v BGC Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 130; (2005) 139 IR 293
- Industrial Rollformers Pty Ltd v Ingersoll-Rand (Australia) Ltd [2001] NSWCA 111
- Jardin v Metcash Ltd [2011] NSWCA 409; (2011) 285 ALR 677
- John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Birt [2006] NSWSC 995
- Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
- Koops Martin v Dean Reeves [2006] NSWSC 449
- Landmark Underwriting Agency Pty Ltd v Kilborn [2006] NSWSC 1108
- McMahon v National Foods Milk Ltd [2009] VSCA 153; (2009) 25 VR 251; 259 ALR 20
- News Ltd v Australian Rugby Football League Ltd (1996) 64 FCR 410; 139 ALR 193
- Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam [1969] 2 MLJ 52
- Portal Software International Pty Ltd v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 631
- Portal Software International Pty Ltd v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1179
- Ross v IceTV Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 272
- Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Warburton (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 386

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.

Continue reading DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe

Details

AGLC: DXC Connect Pty Ltd v Deibe [2017] NSWSC 1159
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1159
Decision Date: 31 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, DXC Connect Pty Ltd, applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the sixth defendant, an employee of the plaintiff who was on gardening leave, from disclosing confidential information and working for a competitor. The plaintiff claimed that the sixth defendant possessed a substantial volume of the plaintiff's records and sought to restrain the defendant beyond the contractual restraint period from working for a competitor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also sought to apply the springboard doctrine to the injunction against the breach of fiduciary duty. The sixth defendant argued that the springboard doctrine should not be applied to the injunction against the breach of fiduciary duty.
The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the sixth defendant from disclosing confidential information and working for a competitor. The court also held that the springboard doctrine was applicable to the injunction against the breach of fiduciary duty. The court found that the sixth defendant possessed a substantial volume of the plaintiff's records and that the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in protecting its confidential information. The court further held that the restraint of trade clause was reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff's legitimate business interests and that it was not unreasonable or oppressive.
The court granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the sixth defendant from disclosing confidential information and working for a competitor of the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the injunction and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court held that the springboard doctrine was applicable to the injunction against the breach of fiduciary duty and that the restraint of trade clause was reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff's legitimate business interests. The court ordered the sixth defendant to refrain from disclosing confidential information and working for a competitor of the plaintiff until the final determination of the proceedings.

Orders