Harold Burt-Gerrans

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to enforce restrictive covenants against a former sales consultant who allegedly used confidential information to start a competing business.

An interim injunction was already in place on consent.

The court dismissed the application for an expanded interlocutory injunction, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case for relief beyond the existing interim terms, which already enforced the substance of the restrictive covenants.

In a long-running dispute over a solicitor's account, the solicitor objected to the client's late delivery of a supplementary expert report regarding alleged spoliation of computer files.

The case management judge found that the client's counsel breached prior case management directions by serving the report late and in an obscure manner.

However, because the solicitor had also been granted an extension to file her own expert report, the court admitted the client's late report to ensure procedural fairness, while adjourning the trial and setting strict new timelines.

The client brought a motion to permanently stay the assessment of its former solicitor's accounts, alleging the solicitor intentionally deleted relevant electronic files from her laptop in breach of a preservation order.

The court found that the allegations involved significant credibility issues and conflicting expert evidence regarding the spoliation of evidence.

Applying principles analogous to summary judgment, the court concluded that a stay was a draconian remedy that could not be granted without a full hearing with viva voce evidence.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice to the client's right to renew the arguments at a full hearing before a Superior Court judge.