Wu v United Overseas Bank Ltd, Sydney Branch (No 2)

In the case of Wu v United Overseas Bank Ltd, Sydney Branch (No 2), the primary issue before the court was whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain the applicant, a former employee of the respondent, from using information she claimed was confidential to the respondent employer. The respondent, United Overseas Bank Ltd, sought to restrain the applicant from using certain documents containing confidential information. The applicant, Ms Wu, argued that she had a right under whistleblower laws to use the information contained in the documents.

The court was required to determine whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case for relief, given the applicant's assertion of a right under whistleblower laws to use the information. The court considered the terms of the employment agreement, the nature of the confidential information, and the potential for harm if the applicant were to use the information. The court also had to assess whether the applicant's belief that she was entitled to use the documents in question to protect her rights was reasonably arguable.

The court found that the respondent had established a prima facie case for relief, as the documents contained information that was confidential to the respondent and the applicant had breached the confidentiality provisions of the employment agreement. The court also found that there was a high probability that, unless restrained, the applicant would use the documents in question in a manner not permitted by the employment agreement. The court concluded that there was a tangible prospect that the applicant would disclose at least some of the documents to persons in addition to regulators or to a lawyer for the purpose of receiving legal advice or representation.

The court granted limited injunctive relief to the respondent, restraining the applicant from disclosing the documents in question to ASIC or APRA, assuming the respondent had otherwise established its entitlement to an injunction. The court also noted that there was a reasonably arguable case that at least some of the documents in question may contain information relating to the “management and prudential supervision” of the respondent. As such, certain provisions of the prudential supervision standards were found to operate to remove the confidentiality provisions as an impediment to the applicant communicating to APRA documents that related to the “management and prudential supervision” of the respondent.

In conclusion, the court granted the respondent limited injunctive relief, restraining the applicant from disclosing the documents in question to ASIC or APRA. The court found that the respondent had established a prima facie case for relief and that there was a tangible prospect of harm if the applicant were to use the documents in question. The court also noted that there was a reasonably arguable case that certain provisions of the prudential supervision standards operated to remove the confidentiality provisions as an impediment to the applicant communicating to APRA documents that related to the “management and prudential supervision” of the respondent.