Lifestyle Developments Victoria Pty Ltd v GFL Developments Pty Ltd - [2020] VSC 269

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LIST

S ECI 2020 02047

LIFESTYLE DEVELOPMENTS VICTORIA PTY LTD (ACN 159 566 458)	Plaintiff
v
GFL DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD (ACN 637 346 493) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Ierodiaconou AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 May 2020
DATE OF RULING:	14 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lifestyle Developments Victoria Pty Ltd v GFL Developments Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 269

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for an interlocutory injunction – Injunction not granted – Confidential information – Unexplained delay in bringing the application – Serious question to be tried – Balance of convenience – Interlocutory injunctions ought be framed with precision.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Noonan	Waterson Legal
For the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants	Mr M Hoyne	Pointer Partners Pty Ltd
For the Third and Seventh Defendants	Mr T Donaghey	Welner Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 1

Employment Contracts...................................................................................................................... 1

Application.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Submissions of the plaintiff............................................................................................................ 4

Submissions of the first, second, fourth – sixth defendants (‘the defendants’).................... 5

Submissions of the third and seventh defendants...................................................................... 6

Analysis................................................................................................................................................ 7

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 11

HER HONOUR:

The corporate parties operate rival real estate agencies. The individual defendants are former employees of the plaintiff. They now work as real estate agents and agent representatives for the first defendant. The plaintiff seeks an interlocutory injunction. The application is opposed.

Summary

I will not make orders for an interlocutory injunction. Orders will be made for an expedited trial.

Employment Contracts

The plaintiff and the individual defendants entered into written employment contracts. The employment contracts follow a similar form and include the following provisions.

7. Confidentiality
7.1 Your obligations
You must:
7.1.1keep any Confidential Information which you have received (whether before the date of this Agreement and in whatever capacity) secret and confidential, except to the extent that you are required by law to disclose it;
7.1.2take all reasonable and necessary precautions to maintain the secrecy and prevent the disclosure of any Confidential Information;
7.1.3refrain from using or attempting to use Confidential Information in any manner which will or may cause or be calculated to cause injury or loss to us or our customers or clients; and
7.1.4not, except in the ordinary and proper course of your employment with us, use or disclose or allow to be used or disclosed any Confidential Information to any person without our prior written consent.

7.2 Acknowledgments
You acknowledge and agree that:
7.2.1Confidential Information will be disclosed to you;
7.2.2disclosure of such Confidential Information by you in breach of your obligations may diminish the value of the Confidential Information and could materially harm us; and
7.2.3the obligations in clause 7.1 are reasonable in all the circumstances and necessary to protect our goodwill.

7.3 Additional client requirements
You acknowledge and agree that you will enter into and comply with any additional confidentiality agreements…

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 Lifestyle Developments Victoria Pty Ltd v GFL Developments P... 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: [2020] VSC 269
Decision Date: 14 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lifestyle Developments Victoria Pty Ltd filed an application against GFL Developments Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent GFL from using confidential information. The dispute centred around allegations that GFL had obtained and used sensitive commercial information belonging to Lifestyle Developments, which it was argued would cause significant harm if not restrained. The primary legal issues before the court were whether an injunction should be granted to protect the confidential information, and if so, what the precise terms of such an injunction should be.

The court considered the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, particularly the need for the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried, and a balance of convenience favouring the granting of the injunction. The court noted that the application was not brought promptly, and there was an unexplained delay in bringing the proceedings. This delay was a significant factor in the court's consideration. The court further noted that injunctions are equitable remedies and should be framed with precision to avoid unduly restricting the respondent's rights. In this case, the court found that while there was a serious question to be tried regarding the use of confidential information, the unexplained delay and the lack of precision in the requested injunction weighed against granting the relief sought.

Ultimately, the court refused to grant the interlocutory injunction. The court found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the injunction due to the delay in bringing the application and the need for precision in framing such an order. No further orders were made by the court in relation to the substantive issues of the case, as the interlocutory application was dismissed.

Orders