we-do-IT Pty Ltd v we-do-IT-Inc [Delaware]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL COURT
ARBITRATION LIST

S ECI 2023 04658

we-do-IT Pty Ltd (ACN 071 972 891)	Applicant
v
we-do-IT-Inc (Delaware filing no: 4863566)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Croft J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 October 2023
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REASONS	20 October 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	we-do-IT Pty Ltd v we-do-IT-Inc [Delaware]
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 611

---

ARBITRATION — Leave to issue a subpoena — Principles — Court’s role in assisting and supporting arbitral processes — Court must be satisfied of compliance with relevant section and rule and reasonableness of subpoena — Court will not ‘second guess’ arbitrator’s ruling where documents relevant to issues in proceeding and subpoena sought to be issued for legitimate forensic purpose — Leave granted on return of application — Section 23 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Wallis KC and Mr J Page	K&L Gates
For the Respondent	Mr C Juebner KC and Ms A Hando	Russell Kennedy Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. By originating application for issue of subpoenas filed 6 October 2023, the Applicant, we‑do‑IT Pty Ltd, seeks an order for the issue of subpoenas under s 23(3) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) (‘IAA’) requiring the following people (‘the Addressees’) to produce documents.

(a)   Shiva Naga Surya Ganesh Kondreddi;

(b)  Adam Jameson;

(c)   Nagamani Meda;

(d)  Sri Prasad Seetala;

(e)   Shivaparvathi Varanasi;

(f)    Emily Kate Allen;

(g)  Prashanth Kumar Ponugoti;

(h)  Michael Boyd Daly;

(i)     Lisa Turner;

(j)     Annabelle Louise Slocombe;

(k)  Ronald Simbulan;

(l)     Intrinsic Global Communications Pty Ltd (ACN 650 006 787); and

(m)             Harsha Teja Sundara.

1. we‑do‑IT‑Inc (Delaware filing no: 4863566) is the Respondent in arbitral proceedings brought by the Applicant.  The seat of the arbitration is Melbourne and the arbitrator is Mr A Monichino KC (‘the Arbitrator’).

1. The dispute the subject of the arbitration arises out of a contract between an Australian company (the Applicant) and a United States company (the Respondent), dated 1 February 2022 (‘the Agreement’).  At the relevant time, both entities were members of a company group involved in the provision of information technology services.[1]  Under the Agreement, the Applicant was to provide certain services and human resources to the Respondent.  The Agreement also contained terms relating to ‘non‑solicitation’ by either party in relation to resources of the other party, as well as terms governing the use of confidential information received by each party.

   [1]Confidential Affidavit of Patrick Sands dated 6 October 2023, [7].

Submissions

1. The Applicant contends that the Respondent, without authority, used the Australian Employee Information and the Indian Employee Information[2] to approach and solicit employees from the Applicant and certain related companies within the we‑do‑IT company group.[3]  Alternatively, the Applicant submits that since at least 29 September 2022, the Respondent, without authority, disclosed this information to Intrinsic Communications Private Limited and Intrinsic Global Communications Pty Ltd (together ‘IGC’) in order to…