Secure Logic Pty Limited v Paul William Noble (No. 3)

[2021] NSWSC 675

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — the plaintiffs are members of a group of companies providing information security services to the IT industry — the plaintiffs claim the first and third defendants each diverted and misused the plaintiffs’ confidential information — the plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to restrain further misuse — whether the information was confidential — whether the information was misused — whether a permanent injunction should be granted against the first and third defendants in the absence of the plaintiffs seeking relief against other persons to prevent the misuse of the plaintiffs’ confidential information obtained through the first and third defendants.
1. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — judgments and orders — the plaintiffs' confidential information is transferred to the first defendant’s personal laptop and associated hard drive — the Court considers making orders for the production of the personal laptop and hard drive — first defendant destroys the personal laptop and hard drive before the orders are perfected and notified to him — what did the first defendant know of the Court’s prospective orders of the time that he destroyed the personal laptop and hard drive — whether the first defendant’s conduct was designed to frustrate the making of future Court orders for production of the personal laptop and hard drive — what inferences should be drawn about the information on the personal laptop and hard drive at the time he destroyed the hard drive.
1. CONTRACTS — Construction — employment contract made between the third plaintiff and the first defendant — whether the employment contract is wholly in writing — whether the full terms of a written contract bind the first defendant and the second plaintiff, a subsidiary of the first plaintiff, or whether only certain numbers recorded in the written form of contract were binding between them — whether the first defendant is entitled to a non-discretionary allowance under the employment contract.
1. CONSUMER LAW — MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT — whether the plaintiffs/cross-defendants made representations as to the financial benefits the first defendant/cross-claimant would be likely to derive from taking employment with the plaintiffs’ group — whether the representations were made — whether they were representations as to future matters — whether they were misleading or deceptive — whether the first defendant/cross-claimant relied upon the representations and whether he suffered any loss or damage as a result.