SEC2 Pty Ltd v Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd
[2025] VSC 634
•16 September 2025 (revised 7 October 2025)
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMERCIAL COURT
DUTY JUDGE
S CI 2025 05398
| SEC2 PTY LTD (ACN 685 041 347) | Plaintiff |
| - v - | |
| LIGHTBULB SECURITY SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 688 137 546) | First Defendant |
| - and - | |
| ALESSANDRO PULVANO | Second Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Sloss J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 16 September 2025 |
DATE OF RULING: | 16 September 2025 (revised 7 October 2025) |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | SEC2 Pty Ltd v Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VSC 634 |
---
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION – Urgent ex parte application – Where in advance of his departure, former employee of a security services business has downloaded information including client data – Where former employee has recently established a rival security services business and has been contacting plaintiff’s clients seeking their business – Where injunction sought to prevent continuing misuse of confidential information including client data – Prima facie case and serious question to be tried – Consideration as to whether a plaintiff claiming misuse of confidential information must demonstrate damages would not be an adequate remedy – Whether balance of convenience favours granting of an injunction – Where lower risk of injustice if interim relief sought is granted – Usual undertakings as to damages given by the plaintiff – Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) s 37 – Court satisfied that it is just and convenient to grant the injunctive relief sought on an interim basis.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Gary Coveney | Rostron Carlyle Rojas Lawyers |
| For the Defendants | No appearance |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
The injunctive relief is sought urgently and on an ex parte basis......................................... 2
Jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief............................................................................................ 4
The plaintiffs’ submissions............................................................................................................. 6
Existence of a prima facie case and serious question to be tried.............................................. 6
The plaintiff contends that damages would not be an adequate remedy (but says that in any event it would not be just to confine it to its remedy in damages because of the inherent difficulty involved in identifying breaches for misuse of confidential information)................. 7
The plaintiff contends that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction 9
The plaintiff has proffered the usual undertaking as to damages....................................... 10
Orders to be made............................................................................................................................ 11
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
This is an urgent ex parte application, brought by summons filed on 16 September 2025, seeking an interim injunction to prevent the (alleged) continuing misuse of confidential information, together with ancillary orders for delivery up and provision of information. The application, which is being heard by video-link, is supported by an affidavit of Panagiotis Con Alexopoulos (also known as Peter) (Mr Alexopoulos), the sole director and secretary of the plaintiff, SEC2 Pty Ltd (SEC2), affirmed on 11 September 2025 (Alexopoulos Affidavit) and a supplementary affidavit of Mr Alexopoulos affirmed on 16 September 2025 (Alexopoulos Supplementary Affidavit).
SEC2 provides security services regarding security systems, primarily to client entities that own and manage large residential buildings comprising apartments, townhouses and similar dwellings located in Victoria and elsewhere. The security systems and access services that SEC2 provides include preparation of card and FOB entry readers and installation and monitoring of remote transmitters and services in connection with encrypted readers and their supply to over 500 client sites in total, including to entities such as [redacted].
SEC2 was registered as a corporation on 4 March 2025. Shortly after its incorporation, SEC2 effectively became the (successor) operator of the security business that was operated by Expert Security Services Pty Ltd (ESS) until it was placed under external administration when a liquidator was appointed to ESS on 21 February 2025. Early in March 2025, Expert Security Holdings Pty Ltd (ES Holdings), as licensor, and SEC2 as licensee, entered into an ‘Intellectual Property Licence’ Agreement whereby ES Holdings agreed to grant a non-exclusive licence to SEC2, and SEC2 accepted the licence, to use the ‘Expert Security’ brand and the ‘Licensed Intellectual Property’ in Australia for a term of one year.
The injunctive relief is sought urgently and on an ex parte basis
The application for injunctive relief is being made ex parte because the second defendant, Mr Alessandro Pulvano, (Mr Pulvano), who is a director of the first defendant, Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd (Lightbulb), was until recently employed by SEC2, and its predecessor, ESS, in the role of ‘Service Assistant’. By email sent to certain officers of, or persons associated with, SEC2 on Thursday 3 July 2025 at 9.11pm, Mr Pulvano notified ‘Peter’ (it is unclear whether this is a reference to Mr Peter Willoughby, his indirect report or to Mr Alexopoulos, who is also known as ‘Peter’) that he was ‘writing this email to formally resign from [his] position as Service Manager at SEC2 Pty Ltd, effective immediately.’[1]
[1]Exhibit PA-01, at 60.
Mr Alexopoulos deposes that prior to receiving Mr Pulvano’s email, he ‘had no knowledge or suspicion that Alessandro was intending to resign.’[2]
[2]Alexopoulos Affidavit, at [15].
Mr Pulvano had commenced employment as a Service Assistant with ESS on or around 24 July 2023. Mr Alexopoulos deposes that on or about 7 March 2025, Mr Pulvano's employment was novated from ESS to SEC2 and he continued to be bound by the employment agreement he entered into when he commenced with ESS. Relevantly, clause 7.1 of the employment agreement required Mr Pulvano to serve SEC2 faithfully, to act in its best interests and to refrain from acting in conflict with those interests.[3] Clause 7.2 of the employment agreement contained a restriction on Mr Pulvano competing with SEC2 during the course of his employment. In addition, clause 11 contained a duty of fidelity, and clause 19 provided that, the employee must not allow his interests to conflict with those of ESS.
[3]Exhibit PA-01, at 52.
As a Service Assistant, Mr Pulvano’s primary role at SEC2 was to place orders to suppliers, process client orders sent to SEC2, and service and maintain installed systems on site at clients' premises. In his role at SEC2 he had access to a host of confidential data, including all client’s site information and contact details for each client’s representative. He also had access to the [redacted] system, which is the cloud-based job management software that SEC2 uses as part of its day to day operations and for maintaining records of client sites and maintenance history.
Mr Alexopoulos deposes that:[4]
18.While he was employed at SEC2, Alessandro had access to SEC2's [redacted] account and database as part of his duties to input, retrieve and manage client data. SEC2's [redacted] account has a different file or 'page' for each client. Each file contains [redacted] client information [redacted], including:
a.encrypted card readers [redacted];
b.layouts, designs and configuration of security systems [redacted]; and
c.contact details for each client's representative.
[4]Alexopoulos Affidavit, at [18].
Investigations made by SEC2 following Mr Pulvano’s resignation have revealed that:
(a) on Saturday, 5 July 2025, when no SEC2 personnel were present in the SEC2 office, Mr Pulvano apparently downloaded a significant amount of confidential client data from SEC2’s [redacted] folder to his desktop computer and then he deleted the documents from his desktop;
(b) on 20 July 2025, Mr Pulvano became a director of a new company, being Lightbulb; and
(c) since at least 25 July 2025 or thereabouts, Mr Pulvano has been contacting SEC2’s clients, seeking their business and letting them know that Lightbulb (through his previous employment) holds all of their necessary access credentials.
In recent times, certain clients of SEC2, namely [redacted] have notified SEC2 that Mr Pulvano/Lightbulb has been contacting them with a view to seeking their custom. The evidence before the Court is that Mr Pulvano has made contact with some SEC2 clients, making statements such as:
As mentioned over the phone, we can supply [client] with all previously supplied access credentials (Fobs, Remotes and Card Readers etc.) from Expert Security. This is because as I was previously part of upper management for Expert Security and have the necessary access to use the encryptions from HID.[5]
and
…I am working to transition all former Expert Security sites, including yours, to their own site-specific encryptions within the next 6–12 months. This will ensure that your site is no longer restricted to a single security company.
It is worth noting that Lightbulb Security Solutions has received resistance from certain companies, such as SEC2, who wish to maintain restrictive control over sites in order to continue charging inflated prices.[6]
[5]Exhibit PA-01, at 448.
[6]Exhibit PA-01, at 447.
Mr Alexopoulos deposes that:[7]
39.The confidential information that Alessandro has copied from SEC2 includes (that I am aware of) site passwords/codes, site encryptions, credential site codes, active number ranges and their history can be used to gain access to all of the apartments in all buildings and residential sites managed by SEC’s clients and directly into the residents' apartments. Alessandro having access to this data, including specification of all equipment installed and system layouts, presents a serious and ongoing risk to all of SEC2’s clients to whom it provides security services, and to SEC2's business reputation.
[7]Alexopoulos Affidavit, at [39].
Mr Alexopoulos also deposes that based on the emails that Mr Pulvano/Lightbulb has sent to SEC2’s clients, he holds a genuine concern that ‘if an injunction is not granted, Alessandro will continue to use SEC2's data to attempt to further his business at the expense of the safety and security of the residents of SEC2's clients.’[8] Further, he believes that if an injunction is not granted, Mr Pulvano ‘will continue to contact SEC2's clients and use their data, and this will have a detrimental effect on SEC2 and its clients' security, and on SEC2's business reputation.’[9]
[8]Alexopoulos Affidavit, at [40].
[9]Alexopoulos Affidavit, at [41].
Jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief
Section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) provides that the Court may by order, whether interlocutory or final, grant an injunction ‘if it is just and convenient to do so, and such orders may be made ‘unconditionally or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just’. The principles governing the grant of an interlocutory injunction are clear. As Kaye JA stated in Sugar Australia Pty Ltd v Lend Lease Services Pty Ltd,[10] citing the decision of the High Court in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill[11], they require:[12]
first, that the applicant must demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried as to its entitlement to relief at trial. In order to satisfy that requirement, the applicant must make out a prima facie case as to its entitlement to that relief, in the sense that it must show a sufficient likelihood of success at trial to justify, in the circumstances, the preservation of the status quo pending trial.[13] In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that, if interlocutory relief is not granted, it is likely to suffer injury for which an award of damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.[14]
[10][2015] VSCA 98 (Sugar Australia).
[11](2006) 227 CLR 57 (ABC v O’Neill).
[12]Sugar Australia, at [108], Osborn and Ferguson JJA agreeing.
[13]Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, 82 [65] (Gummow and Hayne JJ); see also 68 [19] (Gleeson CJ, Crennan J).
[14]Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, 68 [19]; National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited v GTV Corporation Pty Ltd [1989] VR 747.
In ABC v O’Neill,[15] Gummow and Hayne JJ said of the first enquiry, as to whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, that ’it is sufficient that the plaintiff show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial’.[16] Their Honours confirmed that the plaintiff is not required to show that it is more probable than not that at trial the plaintiff will succeed, and in this regard they reiterated the following observations of the Court (Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ) in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd:[17]
How strong the probability needs to be depends, no doubt, upon the nature of the rights [the plaintiff] asserts and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order he seeks.
[15](2006) 227 CLR 57.
[16]Ibid, at 82 [65].
[17](1968) 118 CLR 618, at 622.
Further, in determining where the balance of convenience lies, the cases make clear that the Court should take whichever course 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 his right at the trial, or in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds at trial.[18] As the Court of Appeal noted in Bradto Pty Ltd v State of Victoria,[19] there is a relationship between ‘a prima facie case’ or ‘a serious question to be tried’ on the one hand and ‘the balance of convenience’ on the other. The two requirements need to be examined together. It follows that if the claim of a plaintiff is weak, then the balance of convenience must be more strongly in favour of the plaintiff before the court grants injunctive relief.
[18]See Bradto Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2006) 15 VR 65, at 73 [35] (per Maxwell P and Charles JA).
[19]Ibid, at 82 [84] (citations omitted).
The plaintiffs’ submissions
Existence of a prima facie case and serious question to be tried
In relation to the prima facie case or ‘a serious question to be tried’ enquiry, the plaintiff submits that on the material before the Court, there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the defendants have improperly obtained SEC2’s confidential information and have misused that information. Further, SEC2 contends that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether Mr Pulvano breached:
(a) the employment agreement; and/or
(b) the equitable duty of confidence; and/or
(c) the statutory duties owed by employees pursuant to ss 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
In its Originating Motion, SEC2 seeks final relief which includes a permanent injunction to restrain the misuse of confidential information, damages for breach of contract and compensation pursuant to the Corporations Act. Counsel for SEC2, Mr Gary Coveney, submits that the relief sought on its summons, on an interim and/or interlocutory basis, is in furtherance of that final relief, and that if the evidence remains as it is, then a prima facie case is made out.
The plaintiff contends that damages would not be an adequate remedy (but says that in any event it would not be just to confine it to its remedy in damages because of the inherent difficulty involved in identifying breaches for misuse of confidential information)
Generally, in order to obtain a grant of injunctive relief, the plaintiff must also demonstrate that if no injunction was granted, but its claim was ultimately vindicated, it will have suffered irreparable harm for which damages will not be an adequate remedy. In the present case, the plaintiff contends that damages would not be an adequate remedy, but it goes further and says that in this case it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether damages are an adequate remedy.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that there are three aspects to the inadequacy of damages that are relevant in this case:[20]
24.First, in an interlocutory injunction application in equity’s exclusive jurisdiction (in this case, the equitable duty of confidence), the question of whether damages or other remedies at law are adequate does not arise.[21] Secondly, in equity's auxiliary jurisdiction (in this case, to restrain ongoing breaches of the employment agreement and/or the statutory duties), the question of whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury for which damages will not be adequate compensation involves no more than a consideration of whether the injury cannot properly be compensated in damages, or by an order for accounts or some other interim remedy. The question of whether the injury cannot properly be compensated in damages involves a consideration of whether it is just in all the circumstances that the plaintiff be confined to their remedy in damages.[22] Thirdly, as the Full Court of the Federal Court observed in Samsung Electronics Company Ltd,[23] in assessing the balance of convenience in an interlocutory injunction application, the interests of the public and third persons are relevant and have more or less weight according to other material circumstances; whether those interests tend to favour the grant or refusal of an injunction in any given case depends upon the circumstances of the case; and hardship visited upon third persons or the public generally by the grant of an interlocutory injunction will rarely be decisive.[24]
[20]Plaintiff’s amended outline of submissions, at [24].
[21]Heavener v Loomes [1924] HCA 10; (1924) 34 CLR 306, 326.
[22]See R v MacFarlane; Ex parte O'Flanagan and O'Kelly [1923] HCA 39; (1923) 32 CLR 518, 550 - 551; McCarty v The Council of the Municipality of North Sydney (1918) 18 SR (NSW) 210, 214 –2 15; Action Cycles Pty Ltd v Ross [2011] VSCA 411 [30].
[23][2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 217 FCR 238 at [69].
[24]Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2] [2017] WASCA 76; 55 WAR 36 at [131].
Counsel for the plaintiff referred the Court to the observations of Edelman J in Emeco International Pty Ltd v O’Shea,[25] which have been applied in this Court more recently,[26] when considering whether it is just to confine an applicant such as SEC2 to a remedy in damages. In Emeco, his Honour noted:[27]
It has often been said, in the context of injunctive relief for apprehended breach of a restrictive covenant that 'where what is involved is the enforcement by injunction of a contractual negative stipulation, it is a rare case in which relief will be declined on the basis that damages are a sufficient remedy'.
The reasons why damages are often inadequate in these cases includes (i) the difficulty of detection of breaches of the obligations; (ii) the difficulty of establishing causation between any loss of business with customers and any actions of the ex-employee; and (iii) the difficulty of the calculation of the quantum of any damage arising from loss of business.
[25][2012] WASC 282 (Emeco).
[26]See for e.g., Epichealth Pty Ltd v Yang [2015] VSC 516 at [46]-[48], Agustin-Bunch v Smith [2021] VSC 158 at [96], International Cleaning Services (Aust) Pty Ltd v Davitt [2025] VSC 176 at [52] and National Hearing Centres v Gupta [2025] VSC 528 at [199]-[204].
[27][2012] WASC 282, at [20].
Against that background, counsel for the plaintiff submits that it would not be just to confine SEC2 to its remedy in damages in this case because:[28]
[28]Plaintiff’s amended outline of submissions, at [27].
(a)there is an inherent difficulty for SEC2 in identifying breaches for any misuse of confidential information;
(b)once misuse is detected, it may already be too late, in that a client may have been enticed away;
(c)of the difficulties of proving, in any particular case, whether loss of business custom was caused by the actions of the Defendants; and
(d) of the difficulty and expense involved in calculating any such losses.
Further the plaintiff points to the interests of third parties − here that of the clients of SEC2’s business and the individual owners and tenants of the residential buildings that are the end users of the security services it provides − and contends that ‘[d]amages would not provide any protection to those persons, and SEC2 may be exposed to claims by those third-parties if it does not take steps to restrain the Defendants.’[29]
[29]Plaintiff’s amended outline of submissions, at [28].
In that regard, it was noted that there is no evidence before the Court that the defendants have any assets which could be used to pay an award of damages. Lightbulb is a newly registered company and the director, Mr Pulvano, was until recently an employee with SEC2 and ESS on a salary of approximately $75,000 per year.
The plaintiff contends that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction
Counsel submits that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the relief, because the plaintiff may suffer irreparable injury (for which damages will not be adequate compensation) if the ongoing use of its confidential information is not restrained.
The plaintiff also observes that:[30]
The Defendants are unlikely to suffer any prejudice by the orders, which only seeks to prevent them using SEC2’s confidential information. No general restraint is sought.
[30]Plaintiff’s amended outline of submissions, at [29].
Further, as the plaintiff acknowledges, while there is no evidence that any person has been placed at risk to date, and no evidence that the defendants have actually disclosed SEC2’s confidential information to another party, or that they intend to do so, it submits that notwithstanding this, ‘the limited orders sought by the Plaintiff are intended only to prevent any dissemination or misuse of the confidential information, together with an explanation as to what information the Defendants have disclosed, retained or destroyed.’[31] Accordingly, it submits that there is a lower risk of injustice if the interim relief sought is granted.
[31]Plaintiff’s amended outline of submissions, at [31].
In its outline of submissions, and in its oral submissions before the court today, counsel for the plaintiff has also reiterated that the plaintiff has adhered to its obligations on an ex parte application and sought to draw to the court's attention, as its duty of candour requires, that there is no evidence before the court that should otherwise have been submitted to the court on the hearing of this ex parte application.
The Court asked counsel about the matters mentioned in the third paragraph of the ‘resignation’ email (reproduced below), that was sent by Mr Pulvano to personnel at SEC2 on Thursday, 3 July 2025 at 9.11pm:[32]
I am writing this email to formally resign from my position as Service Manager at SEC2 Pty Ltd, effective immediately.
This decision has not come easily, and I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to have worked for SEC2 Pty Ltd. I have greatly appreciated the support and guidance provided during my time with the company.
Unfortunately, in light of recent events involving PCI it has made me reevaluate my position at SEC2 and I have decided it would be in my best interest to distance myself from the company.
I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to John and Sabrina for offering me the opportunity to continue working with them after the closure of Expert Security. Their trust and encouragement during that transitional period meant a great deal to me and have not gone unnoticed.
Working alongside John and Sabrina and contributing to the growth of SEC2 has been a valuable experience.
Thank you once again for the opportunity and support.
[32]Alexopoulos Affidavit, Exhibit PA-01 at 60 (emphasis in bold italics added)
The plaintiff's counsel was unable to better explain the contextual evidence about ‘recent events’ mentioned therein, but confirmed that the entity named PCI, appears to be a reference to the firm from which the liquidator was appointed to ESS, being PCI Partners Pty Ltd. Nothing further is known in that regard.[33]
[33]Transcript 16.09.2025, at 18.
The plaintiff has proffered the usual undertaking as to damages
At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff confirmed that the plaintiff gives the usual undertaking as to damages. The plaintiff’s financial position is outlined in the letter dated 15 September 2025 from SEC2’s accountant, Mr Ken Wallace at Sztainboks, and the accompanying Statement of Assets and Liabilities which is exhibited to Mr Alexopoulos Supplementary Affidavit.[34]
[34]Exhibit PA-02 to Mr Alexopoulos Supplementary Affidavit.
Having regard to the evidence set out in the affidavit of Mr Alexopoulos affirmed on 11 September 2025 and the supplementary affidavit of Mr Alexopoulos affirmed on 16 September 2025, the plaintiff's amended outline of submissions on the hearing of the interlocutory application filed on 16 September 2025, and having heard from counsel, I am satisfied that, for the reasons outlined by counsel for the plaintiff in his submissions, that it is just and convenient to grant the injunctive relief the plaintiff seeks on an interim basis along the lines sought in the minute of proposed orders submitted to the court.
Orders to be made
I propose making orders along the following lines:
Application may proceed by audio visual link
1.Pursuant to s 42E(l) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958 (Vic), leave be granted to the plaintiff to appear, give evidence and make submissions at the hearing by audio visual or audio link.
Service and return of application
2.Pursuant to Order 3.02(1) of the Rules, the time for service of the proceeding be abridged, and the application made by summons filed on 16 September 2025 be returnable immediately.
Injunction restraining the use of the Confidential Information
3.Subject to further order, upon the plaintiff providing the usual undertaking as to damages (as contained in paragraph 4 of the Other Matters above), pursuant to s.37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, Order 38.01 of the Rules, or the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, until 5pm on the return date, the defendants, whether by themselves or by their employees, agents, attorneys or otherwise, be restrained from using, reproducing, imparting or disclosing to any person, firm or company the plaintiff’s Confidential Information (as defined in Schedule A to this order).
Service of relevant material on the defendants
4.By 4:00pm on Wednesday, 17 September 2025, the plaintiff is to cause a copy of these orders, together with copies of all material filed with or provided to the Court in support of such orders, to be served on the defendants.
5.The plaintiff is to serve a copy of the transcript of the hearing of the application (on 16 September 2025) on the defendants within 24 hours of the transcript becoming available to the plaintiff.
Further material
6.By 4:00pm on Wednesday, 24 September 2025, the defendants must file and serve on the plaintiff an affidavit stating:
(a)the names of any other person to whom the defendant has communicated any of the plaintiff’s Confidential Information and if so, the description of that information, the identity of the person to whom it was communicated, and how and when it was communicated;
(b)whether he or it has retained any copy of any of the plaintiff’s Confidential Information, including in any electronic form; and
(c)whether he or it has deleted or destroyed any of the plaintiff’s Confidential Information, and the date and manner of such deletion or destruction.
Return of the interim orders
7.The plaintiff’s summons be listed for further hearing, on an inter partes basis, before the Commercial Court Duty Judge on Tuesday, 30 September 2025 at 10.30am (or so soon thereafter as it may be heard) (the return date).
General
8.Costs be reserved.
9.There be liberty to apply.
0
2
0