National Hearing Centres v Gupta - [2025] VSC 528

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LIST

S ECI 2025 04271

NATIONAL HEARING CENTRES PTY LTD (ACN 075 889 262)	Plaintiff
v
ASHEESH GUPTA (and others according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Attiwill J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 and 15 August 2025
DATE OF RULING:	28 August 2025 (revised 29 August 2025)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	National Hearing Centres v Gupta
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 528

---

INJUNCTIONS — Application for interlocutory injunctions – Springboard injunction – Confidential information injunctions - Injunctions to enforce employment restraints, including post-employment restraints – Alleged breaches of equitable obligation of confidence, fiduciary duty, duty of fidelity and employment restraints – Where plaintiff’s former employees have established a competing business, including during employment with the plaintiff, and are also alleged to have misused confidential information and threaten to misuse information – Whether serious questions to be tried – Whether damages are an adequate remedy – Whether balance of convenience supports the injunctive relief sought – Delay – Prejudice – Injunction granted to restrain use of confidential information – Relief otherwise refused – Liberty Financial Pty Ltd v Scott (No 4) (2005) 11 VR 629 – LibertyFinancial Pty Ltd v Jugovic [2021] FCA 607 – Just Group Ltd v Peck (2016) 344 ALR 162.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Solomon-Bridge	Gilchrist Connell
For the Defendants	Ms R Preston with Mr T Burn-Francis	Duffy & Simon

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff seeks interlocutory relief against two of its former long-standing employees, Mr Gupta and Mr Trampevski, the first and second defendants, and a company they established in competition with the plaintiff named Hearing Consultants Australia Pty Ltd (Hearing Consultants), the third defendant. The plaintiff seeks a broad range of interlocutory relief against the defendants based on a number of causes of action, including breaches of the equitable obligation of confidence, fiduciary duty, duty of fidelity and employment and post-employment contractual restraints. There is currently a consent order that restrains certain conduct of the defendants until 4:00pm on the day the Court delivers its ruling on the application.

The principles applicable to an application for an interlocutory injunction are well established. In summary:

(a) a plaintiff seeking interlocutory injunctive relief must demonstrate that there is a serious question to be tried;

(b) the injury the plaintiff is likely to suffer must be one for which damages will not provide an appropriate remedy;

(c) the balance of convenience must favour the granting of an injunction, which also requires consideration of the strength of the plaintiff’s claim;

(d) ultimately, the Court should take the course that appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been wrong, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish the asserted right at trial, or failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds at trial.

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 National Hearing Centres v Gupta

Details

AGLC: National Hearing Centres v Gupta [2025] VSC 528
Case: [2025] VSC 528
Decision Date: 28 August 2025 (revised 29 August 2025)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

National Hearing Centres, a medical services provider, filed an application against its former employees, the Guptas, seeking interlocutory injunctions to prevent them from using confidential information and to enforce employment restraints. The applicants alleged that the Guptas had established a competing business during their employment and were misusing confidential information, threatening further misuse. The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia heard the case, which raised several legal issues. The court needed to determine if there were serious questions to be tried, whether damages would be an adequate remedy, and if the balance of convenience supported the injunctive relief sought. Additionally, the court considered factors such as delay and prejudice in the context of the application for relief.

The court assessed the merits of the case, focusing on the balance of convenience and the adequacy of damages as a remedy. The court found that there were serious questions to be tried regarding the misuse of confidential information and breaches of equitable obligations. However, the court concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy for any such breaches. The court also considered the delay in bringing the application and the potential prejudice to the defendants if injunctive relief was granted. Ultimately, the court found that the balance of convenience did not support the granting of an injunction to enforce the employment restraints, but it did support an injunction to prevent the misuse of confidential information. The court granted the application for a confidentiality injunction but refused to grant relief for the enforcement of employment restraints.

The court's final orders included granting an injunction to prevent the Guptas from using or disclosing confidential information obtained from National Hearing Centres. The court refused to grant an injunction to enforce the employment restraints, including post-employment restraints, as it was determined that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breaches. The decision highlighted the importance of weighing the balance of convenience and the adequacy of damages in determining whether to grant injunctive relief. The case underscores the need for careful consideration of these factors in applications for interlocutory injunctions.

Orders