Ecolab Pty Ltd v Textile Hygiene Services Pty Ltd

[2002] FCA 1421

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ecolab Pty Ltd v Textile Hygiene Services Pty Ltd
[2002] FCA 1421

ECOLAB PTY LIMITED v TEXTILE HYGIENE SERVICES PTY LIMITED, TEXTILE HYGIENE TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED, JOHN GREENALL and HUBERT GRIMM
N 1219 OF 2002

GYLES J
SYDNEY

19 NOVEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 1219 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

ECOLAB PTY LIMITED
APPLICANT

AND:

TEXTILE HYGIENE SERVICES PTY LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT

TEXTILE HYGIENE TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT

JOHN GREENALL
THIRD RESPONDENT

HUBERT GRIMM
FOURTH RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	19 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On the ex parte evidence presented, I am satisfied that there is a real possibility that evidence relevant to a claim for breach of confidence by the applicant against the proposed respondent, John Greenall, involving all or some of the other proposed respondents, is in the possession, custody or power of one or more of the proposed respondents.  In particular, I am satisfied that there may be a document or documents on a computer record which contains or utilises ServicePro software and that there may be emails or other documents on a computer record passing between either or both of the second or fourth proposed respondent and the said John Greenall during his employment by the applicant.  I am satisfied that such evidence may exist (amongst other places) at each of the premises 37-39 Elgin Crescent, Park Orchards, Victoria, and 3 Spicer Court, Aspendale Gardens, Victoria.  I am further satisfied that if such evidence does exist it is more probable than not that, if forewarned, one or more of the proposed respondents or their servants or agents would destroy or hide such evidence.  The preconditions for an Anton Piller order along the lines of that proposed are thus established.

2. As the proposed respondents are all located in Melbourne and the premises to be entered are in Melbourne, it is appropriate that supervision of the execution of these orders and any proceedings which are immediately related to the execution of these orders should be carried out in the Victorian Registry of the Court.  The remedy is extraordinary and intrusive and parties should not be forced to come to Sydney to raise any appropriate issue.  This is not intended to indicate any view that Melbourne is the appropriate venue for the general conduct of the proceeding.  That can be considered by the docket judge in due course.  I grant leave to file an application in the form initialled and dated by me.  The matter will, for the time being, remain in the New South Wales Registry of the Court, returnable before the docket judge (or duty judge if necessary) at 9.30am on Monday, 2 December 2002, but in the meantime the file will be transferred to the Victorian Registry in case there is any urgent application in the meantime.  The respondents and each of them will have liberty to apply on two hours’ notice to the duty judge sitting in the Victorian Registry of the Court.

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gyles.

Associate:

Dated:            19 November 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	B DeBuse
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Business Lawyers
Date of Hearing:	18, 19 November 2002
Date of Judgment:	19 November 2002