Integrated Global Partners Pty Ltd v Hyde - [2018] VSC 45

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LIST

S CI 2017 04878

INTEGRATED GLOBAL PARTNERS PTY LTD	Plaintiff
(ACN 161 017 634)
v
EMMA HYDE (and others according to the schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McDONALD J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 December 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 February 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Integrated Global Partners Pty Ltd v Hyde & ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 45

---

INJUNCTION – Plaintiff accessed second defendant’s confidential information when conducting an audit of an employee’s laptop computer – Employee undertaking work for second defendant in breach of contractual obligations to plaintiff – Plaintiff utilised confidential information in preparation of statement of claim – Application for orders striking out statement of claim and restraining plaintiff’s lawyers from continuing to act in proceeding – Circumstances in which plaintiff accessed confidential information did not impose obligation to maintain confidentiality of documents – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr I G Waller QC with Mr J S Mereine	HWL Ebsworth
For the Defendants	Mr P H Solomon QC with Ms M Norton	Norton Rose Fullbright Australia

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff (IGP) is engaged in the business of providing management consulting services worldwide to companies in the mining and resource industry and government bodies, agencies, authorities and departments. The first defendant, Ms Hyde, was employed by IGP as Practice Manager between 1 January 2016 and 29 September 2017. The second defendant, Tactical Transformation Services and Associates Pty Ltd (TTSA), was incorporated on 7 April 2017. On the same day, the third defendant, Mr Nucifora, was appointed as its sole director and company secretary. The sole shareholder of TTSA is Audacia Global Pty Ltd (Audacia), a company controlled by Mr Nucifora. Mr Nucifora was a director of IGP between 23 October 2015 and 30 June 2016. Ms Donna Murphy is Mr Nucifora’s sister. Ms Murphy was employed by IGP between 1 September 2015 and 25 October 2017. From 1 August 2016, Ms Murphy was employed in the role of business support officer. Mr Nucifora was her supervising partner. Between 16 March 2017 and 25 October 2017, Ms Murphy was employed pursuant to a written contract of employment as a casual employee at an hourly rate of $61.65.

On 6 July 2017, IGP entered into a consultancy agreement with Audacia pursuant to which Audacia was engaged as a consultant to undertake work for IGP. On 10 July 2017, IGP entered into a selective share buy-back agreement with Audacia. IGP, Audacia and Mr Nucifora entered into a shareholder exit deed pursuant to which IGP agreed to purchase Audacia’s shares in IGP. Mr Nucifora agreed to resign as a director of IGP and Audacia agreed to procure Mr Nucifora to perform consultancy work for IGP under the consultancy agreement.

The unchallenged evidence of Mr Herman Kleynhans, a director of IGP, is that on or about 20 October 2017, he became aware that:

(a)between 9…

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 Integrated Global Partners Pty Ltd v Hyde

Details

AGLC: Integrated Global Partners Pty Ltd v Hyde [2018] VSC 45
Case: [2018] VSC 45
Decision Date: 13 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Integrated Global Partners Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against several defendants in the Federal Court of Australia, seeking various reliefs including damages and injunctions. The central dispute arose from the plaintiff's audit of an employee's laptop, which was conducted while the employee was working for one of the defendants. During this audit, the plaintiff accessed confidential information belonging to another defendant. The plaintiff then utilised this information in preparing their statement of claim. In response, the defendant moved to have the statement of claim struck out and to restrain the plaintiff's lawyers from continuing to act in the proceeding, on the basis that the confidential information should not have been used.

The court was tasked with determining whether the circumstances under which the plaintiff accessed the confidential information imposed an obligation to maintain its confidentiality. The court considered whether the plaintiff's actions warranted an injunction to prevent the use of the confidential information and to restrain the plaintiff's lawyers. The court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties, the obligations of confidentiality, and the fairness of allowing the plaintiff to use the information obtained in an unauthorised manner.

The court found that the circumstances did not impose an obligation on the plaintiff to maintain the confidentiality of the documents. It was determined that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith and that there was no basis for granting an injunction. The court held that the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim and to restrain the plaintiff's lawyers was without merit. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with its claims.

The court made orders dismissing the application and allowing the plaintiff to continue with its proceedings against the defendants.

Orders