Legal Research
Cases
SEC2 Pty Ltd v Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd

SEC2 Pty Ltd v Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd

Case [2025] VSC 634 16 September 2025

Interlocutory Orders

Confidential Information

Unjust Enrichment

Intellectual Property Law

Commercial Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

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…

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 SEC2 Pty Ltd v Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: SEC2 Pty Ltd v Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 634
Case: [2025] VSC 634
Decision Date: 16 September 2025 (revised 7 October 2025)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

SEC2 Pty Ltd brought an urgent ex parte application against Lightbulb Security Solutions Pty Ltd, seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the misuse of confidential information, including client data, by a former employee who had downloaded such information before leaving the company. This employee had subsequently started a rival security services business and was contacting SEC2’s clients to solicit their business. The application was made under section 37 of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), and the primary legal issues were whether SEC2 had established a prima facie case and a serious question to be tried, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. A significant consideration was whether SEC2 needed to demonstrate that damages would not be an adequate remedy.

The court found that SEC2 had made out a prima facie case and that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the misuse of confidential information. The court also considered that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. It was noted that there was a lower risk of injustice if the interim relief was granted, particularly given the potential for irreparable harm to SEC2’s business and client relationships. The court accepted SEC2’s usual undertakings as to damages, which typically involve the plaintiff promising to compensate the defendant for any losses if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted.

Having considered the evidence and arguments presented, the court was satisfied that it was just and convenient to grant the injunctive relief sought on an interim basis. The court recognised the urgency of the situation and the potential for significant harm if the injunction was not granted, particularly in light of the employee’s actions in establishing a rival business and directly contacting SEC2’s clients.

The final orders included granting the interlocutory injunction, which restrained the former employee from using or disclosing any confidential information obtained from SEC2, and required him to return any such information in his possession. The injunction also prohibited him from contacting SEC2’s clients for the purposes of soliciting their business.

Orders