Bayley & Associates Pty Ltd v DBR Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1341

Procedural Posture

Federal Court Proceeding Concerning Breach of Employment Contract, Fiduciary Duty, Equitable Confidence, Copyright Infringement and Breach of Auspicing Agreement / Liability Determined Separately From Quantum; Relief to Be Determined on the Papers After Draft Declarations and Orders

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether Mr Huckstep owed fiduciary duties to B&A and breached those duties by competing through DBR, diverting opportunities, misusing confidential information and exploiting the TSPV opportunity.' 'Whether Mr Huckstep breached clauses 3, 21 and 22 of his Australian Workplace Agreement and the common law duty of fidelity owed to B&A.' "Whether B&A's courseware, business documents, client information and training materials were confidential and protected by an equitable obligation of confidence." "Whether DBR breached the Auspicing Agreement by soliciting or using Mr Jenkins and by misusing B&A's confidential information." "Whether Mr Huckstep and DBR infringed B&A's copyright by electronically transmitting and making paper copies of B&A's courseware and other confidential business documents." 'What form of relief should be granted at the liability stage and whether B&A must elect between equitable or statutory compensation and an account of profits.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Mr Huckstep was B&A's General Manager with substantial managerial authority, access to confidential materials and responsibility for business development, he owed B&A the pleaded fiduciary duties as well as contractual and equitable duties. By secretly establishing and advancing DBR, negotiating with and diverting DSD and other client opportunities, transferring and using B&A's confidential courseware and business documents, exploiting the TSPV obtained through B&A, and reproducing B&A copyright materials, he breached those duties and infringed copyright. DBR participated in the misuse and breached the Auspicing Agreement by soliciting or using Mr Jenkins and interfering with his...

Court Disposition

B&A had substantial success on liability against Mr Huckstep and DBR, except for the claim for an inquiry based on misuse of confidential information supplied under the Auspicing Agreement. Quantum and final relief were reserved for later determination on the papers after proposed orders.

Orders

• ['Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of the publication of these Reasons for Judgment, the applicant lodge with the Associate to Foster J draft Declarations and Orders which it contends give effect to these Reasons for Judgment.' 'Within twenty-one (21) days thereafter, the respondents inform the Associate to...