Safety Direct Solutions Pty Ltd v Challen - [2020] WASC 34

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SAFETY DIRECT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD -v- CHALLEN [2020] WASC 34
CORAM:   MASTER SANDERSON
HEARD:   30 JANUARY & 6 FEBRUARY 2020
DELIVERED          :   6 FEBRUARY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   7 FEBRUARY 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2931 of 2019
BETWEEN:   SAFETY DIRECT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD
Plaintiff
AND
GRAHAM CHALLEN
First Defendant
TALIS GROUP PTY LTD
Second Defendant
EION WAYNE VAN BILJON
Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Employment law - Application for interlocutory injunction to restrain former employee - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Injunction granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Ms E Hensler
First Defendant	:	Mr R J S French
Second Defendant	:	Mr R J S French
Third Defendant	:	Mr R J S French

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Michael Paterson & Associates
First Defendant	:	Gilchrist Connell
Second Defendant	:	Gilchrist Connell
Third Defendant	:	Gilchrist Connell

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Austal Ships Pty Ltd v Clay [2018] WASC 178

MASTER SANDERSON:

This was the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the first defendant from undertaking certain activities during the course of his employment with the second defendant. After hearing argument I made orders in terms sought by the plaintiff. These are my reasons for making the orders.
The writ of summons in this matter was filed on 8 November 2019. The chamber summons seeking the interlocutory injunction was filed on 11 November 2019. A statement of claim was filed on 28 November 2019. The defendants' opposition to this application focused particularly on the terms of the contract as pleaded in the statement of claim. It is convenient then to begin by an analysis of the pleaded claim.
The plaintiff is identified as a business 'providing fire, rescue, medical and high risk management services and training'. The first defendant was an employee of the plaintiff between August 2013 and March 2015 and between August 2017 and 19 September 2019. The plaintiff is and has been since 1 October 2019 a shareholder and director of the second defendant. The second defendant carries on the business of providing high risk management solutions to clients including gas testers, medical and rescue personnel and operational equipment training and services. It is a competitor of the plaintiff. The third defendant is a director of the second defendant and a former employee of the plaintiff. In their defence filed 18 December 2019 the defendants admit all these facts save for points of detail which are not relevant to this application.
The plaintiff says the first defendant was employed by it pursuant to three employment agreements. For present purposes it is the third of those agreements defined in the pleading as the '2018 Employment Agreement' which is relevant. The plaintiff says the first defendant resigned from his employment with the plaintiff on 19 September 2019 and immediately took up employment with the second defendant. The plaintiff alleges in doing so the first defendant breached restraint clauses which are contained in the 2018 Employment Agreement.…

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 Safety Direct Solutions Pty Ltd v Challen 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] WASC 34
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Safety Direct Solutions Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction against its former employee, Challen, to restrain him from disclosing confidential information. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary focus was on whether Challen's actions constituted a misuse of confidential information, and if the applicant had a sufficient basis to seek an injunction under the Confidential Information Act.

The court needed to determine whether the information Challen possessed was indeed confidential and whether its disclosure would cause irreparable harm to the applicant. It also needed to consider whether the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for the injunction. The court had to weigh the applicant's right to protect its confidential information against Challen's right to freedom of speech and expression.

The court found that the information Challen possessed was confidential and that its disclosure could indeed cause irreparable harm to Safety Direct Solutions Pty Ltd. The applicant had established a prima facie case for the injunction. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, restraining Challen from disclosing any confidential information. The court emphasised the importance of protecting confidential business information and the need to balance this with individual rights. The injunction remains in place pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings.

Orders