• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Concept Cosmetic Medicine Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 113 316 322) trading as Concept Cosmetic Medicine (Plaintiff)
Nicole Kristina Chater (First Defendant)
Sally Leonard (Second Defendant)
Mind Body Skin Institute Pty Ltd (ACN 685 149 740) (Third Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
Mr A Butt (Plaintiff)
Mr C O’Neil with Mr Franco (First and Third Defendants)
Mr A Cornish (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Mitry Emerson Lewis Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Black Bay Lawyers (First and Third Defendants)
Carmody Lawyers (Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2026/156119

Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment

Introduction

1. The plaintiff, Concept Cosmetic Medicine Holdings Pty Ltd (CCM), has operated a cosmetic medicine clinic in Bowral since 2002, in Drummoyne since 2005, and in Newcastle since 2010.

2. The first defendant, Dr Nicole Chater, is a physician. Until 19 December 2025, Dr Chater practiced as a cosmetic physician at CCM’s Bowral and Drummoyne clinics pursuant to a licence agreement dated 23 February 2022 (the Licence Agreement).

3. The second defendant, Ms Sally Leonard, worked in a part-time clerical support role at CCM from about January 2023 pursuant to an employment agreement dated 19 December 2022 (the Employment Agreement). Mr Leonard resigned from that position on 19 December 2025.

4. The third defendant, Mind Skin Body Institute Pty Limited (MBSI), was incorporated on 7 March 2025. Dr Chater and Mr Andrew Chater are the sole directors of the company. Since 5 January 2026, MBSI has offered general practice services (including women’s health and mental health), metabolic health services, skin services, cosmetic medicine and laser services. MBSI’s premises are located approximately 750 metres from CCM’s Bowral clinic. Those services are provided by Dr Chater. Ms Leonard commenced employment with MBSI on 5 January 2026.

5. CCM commenced these proceedings by summons on 16 April 2026 seeking the following final relief:

6. declarations that:

(a) Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI misused confidential information belonging to CCM; (b) Dr Chater breached clause 21 of the Licence Agreement; and (c) Ms Leonard breached the Duties and Obligations and Confidentiality clauses in the Employment Contract;

2. an injunction restraining Dr Chater from providing medical services “to any Concept Cosmetic Medicine (CCM clients)” until 19 December 2026;
3. injunctions:

(a) restraining Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI (and, in the case of Dr Chater and MBSI, their servants and agents) from further misusing CCM’s confidential information described in the schedule to the summons, or any part of that confidential information; (b) requiring the delivery up to CCM and destruction of any confidential information belong to CCM in the possession or control of Dr Chater, Ms Leonard or MBSI, subject to (4) below; and (c) restraining Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI (and, in the case of Dr Chater and MBSI, their servants and agents) from soliciting or treating any CCM clients until 19 December 2026 or assisting Dr Chater to do so;

4. an injunction restraining Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI from destroying or altering any records (electronic or hard copy) constituting medical treatment records or appointment histories of patients, drug register information, or employee contractual documentation;

5. equitable compensation for the alleged breach of equitable duty of confidence or, alternatively, an account of profits; and

6. damages for Dr Chater’s alleged breach of the Licence Agreement and Ms Leonard’s alleged breach of the Employment Contract.

7. By notice of motion filed on 16 April 2026, the plaintiff seeks the following interim relief pending final determination of the proceedings (or 19 December 2026, whichever occurs earlier):

8. an injunction restraining Dr Chater from providing medical services to any CCM clients;

9. an injunction restraining Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI (and, in the case of Dr Chater and MBSI, their servants and agents) from further misuse of any confidential information of CCM described in the Schedule to the summons;

10. an injunction requiring the delivery up to CCM and destruction of any confidential information belong to CCM in the possession or control of Dr Chater, Ms Leonard or MBSI, subject to (5) below;

11. an injunction restraining Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI (and, in the case of Dr Chater and MBSI, their servants and agents) from soliciting or treating any CCM clients (or assisting Dr Chater to do so, in the case of Ms Leonard and MBSI); and

12. an injunction restraining Dr Chater, Ms Leonard and MBSI from destroying or altering any records (electronic or hard copy) constituting medical treatment records or appointment histories of patients, drug register information, or employee contractual documentation.

13. For the reasons explained below, CCM has failed to demonstrate that its claims for relief raise a serious question to be tried. Even if I had determined that there was a serious question to be tried, I would have held that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the interim injunction in circumstances where CCM stipulated a monetary remedy for any breach of clause 21 of the Licence Agreement and having regard to CCM’s delay in commencing these proceedings. CCM’s notice of motion filed on 16 April 2026 must therefore be dismissed with costs.

Salient evidence

8. In support of its application for interim relief, CCM relied on affidavits of Helen Margaret Hamilton sworn on 15 April, 7 May and 15 May 2026 and an affidavit of Erin Buick affirmed on 15 April 2026. Ms Hamilton is the sole director and shareholder of CCM and works as the practice manager of CCM. Ms Buick is a receptionist employed by CCM.

9. In opposing CCM’s application for interim relief, Dr Chater and MBSI relied on Dr Chater’s affidavit sworn on 29 April 2026 and Ms Leonard relied on her affidavit sworn on 30 April 2026.

10. What follows is a summary of those aspects of the evidence that are relevant to the determination of CCM’s claims for interim relief, and should not be read as findings of fact.

11. Dr Chater is a specialist general medical practitioner and cosmetic medicine doctor.

12. As I have already mentioned, CCM has operated a cosmetic medicine clinic in Bowral since 2002, in Drummoyne since 2005, and in Newcastle since 2010. The Bowral clinic operates on a consecutive Thursday and Friday once a month and on alternate Wednesdays.

13. Dr Chater began working two to three days per week at CMC’s Drummoyne clinic in about March 2022, while also working one day per week at East Ryde Medical Practice. From March 2023 (according to Ms Hamilton’s evidence) or 2024 (according to Dr Chater’s evidence), Dr Chater began working at CMC’s Bowral clinic one day per month. From late 2024, Dr Chater increased her work at the Bowral clinic to one to two days per week (according to Ms Hamilton’s evidence) or to two half days a week (according to Dr Chater’s evidence).

14. All of the cosmetic physicians who practice at CCM are engaged as independent contractors pursuant to the terms of a licence agreement between CCM and the physician. As Ms Hamilton’s evidence acknowledges, none of the cosmetic physicians are required to practice exclusively at CCM.

15. CCM entered into the Licence Agreement with Dr Chater on 23 February 2022 setting out the terms and conditions on which CCM offered Dr Chater “a licence to attend its premises and use the facilities”.

16. Clause 1 of the Licence Agreement identified the premises, including the Bowral clinic.

17. Clauses 2 to 4 of the Licence Agreement provided:

Term and termination

2. The licence commences on 8 March 2022 and expires on 7 March 2023 to be renewed at the anniversary of each year unless terminated earlier.

3. At any time prior to the expiration of the licences you or CCM can terminate the arrangement on one month’s notice.

4. In addition to termination on notice, CCM may terminate the licence immediately and without notice if in the reasonable opinion of CCM it would be harmful to the operations of CCM for the licence to continue.

18. Clause 5 of the Licence Agreement set out CCM’s obligation to give Dr Chater access to its premises during ordinary office hours and provide reception services, nursing support, and product consumables and laser equipment.

19. Clauses 6 to 13 of the Licence Agreement set out Dr Chater’s obligations:

Your obligations

6. To pay the licence fee, product and laser fee when due.

7. When at the premises you may provide medical services to patients of a kind that are consistent with the services promoted by CCM as being available at its premises or as may be agreed with CCM.

8. At all times you must maintain any registrations and accreditations necessary or required to provide those medical services.

9. At all times you must maintain professional indemnity insurance in respect of the provision of those medical services.

10. You are expected to attend to patients at the premises for 46 weeks of each year of the licence period unless otherwise agreed.

11. You must work cooperatively with any other person who may be making use of the facilities at the premises.

12. When using the premises and facilities you must comply with any CCM policies, procedures and guidelines, and maintain the cleanliness of procedure rooms after your use of them including disposal of all sharps.

13. From time to time you may be given equipment or materials, or access keys to the premises, all of which must be returned on demand by CCM or upon termination of the licence for any reason.

20. Clauses 14 to 20 provide for the calculation of the licence fee payable by Dr Chater and the invoicing arrangements. In short, the licence fee was calculated monthly as a specified percentage of the fees payable to Dr Chater by patients for her services provided at CCM clinics, plus product and laser usage charges. The percentage component of the licence fee depending on the number of hours that Dr Chater worked at CCM clinics during the month. The licence fee was calculated as at least 50% of the fees payable by patients to Dr Chater. Clauses 14 to 17 of the Licence Agreement made the following provision for invoicing and accounting arrangements:

14. You agree that all medical services provided by you at the premises can and will be invoiced to your patients by CCM as your agent.

15. CCM is authorised to collect payment of those invoices on your behalf. You agree to account to CCM for any payment of any invoice not made through CCM.

16. On a monthly basis, CCM will provide you with a statement of invoices and collections.

17. Before accounting to you for any payments received you authorise CCM to set off against, and deduct from the payments received the amount of the licence fee due in respect of the licence and to apply that amount to payment of the licence fee and other costs.

21. Ms Hamilton had a practice of producing a reconciliation list for each cosmetic physician at the end of each month listing the patients seen by the physician that month, the amounts paid by those patients to CCM for treatment and services provided by the physician, the cost of pharmaceuticals and the use of laser machines attributed to and charged to the physician by CCM in that month, and the net amount that the physician would be paid by CCM.

22. Clause 21 of the Licence Agreement provided:

CCM clients

21. As part of its business CCM may identify to you or provide you with contact information for clients who may wish to make use of your medical services. These clients are referred to as CCM Clients. You agree that you will not provide any medical services to any CCM Client other than at the premises. You also agree that for one year after termination of this agreement for any reason, you will not provide medical services to any CCM Client. If, in breach of these obligations, you will be jointly and severally liable to pay CCM an amount being equal to the licence fee that you would have paid had the licence been in effect and had you provided those services at the premises.

23. As I have already mentioned, Ms Leonard worked in a part-time clerical support role at CCM’s Bowral clinic from about January 2023. Her responsibilities included general reception duties, arranging appointments for patients, contacting patients to confirm their upcoming appointments or to change an appointment if a physician became unavailable.

24. The Employment Agreement between CCM and Ms Leonard dated 19 December 2023 included the following terms:

6) Duties and Obligations

During the period of your employment with CCM, you will be required to:

(a) Faithfully carry out the responsibilities of Clerical Support to the best of your abilities and to that which is within your competence and skills; and

(b) Use all reasonable efforts to promote the interests of CCM; and

(c) Comply with all policies of CCM in place from time to time; and

(d) Not engage in any other activity, which would hinder or prevent you from acting consistently with these terms and conditions.

7) Termination of Employment

(a) Your employment may be terminated by:

(i) You giving CCM two (2) weeks’ notice; or

(ii) CCM giving you the same period of notice or by paying you an amount equal to your wages for that period in lieu of notice.

…

Confidentiality

It is a condition of your employment that you will not, without the prior written consent of CCM, directly or indirectly:

Disclose or publish, or permit the disclosure or publication of any Confidential Information to any person or

Use or permit the use of any confidential information other than as necessary in the course of your employment

As required by a law of Australia

For the purpose of this agreement, confidential information means any information whatsoever of a confidential nature, (whether provided verbally or by way of a document or other material in human or machine readable form) which relates to CCM including but not limited to: -

Business ideas or concepts

Business plans or projections

Market research and marketing plans

Finances

Personnel

Clients

Business partners or associates

Intellectual property rights licensed to or by, or owned CCM

Concepts not reduced to material form and any combination of such information in documents or otherwise.

25. According to Ms Hamilton’s evidence, employees of CCM are provided with a login to access the “Oasis” system that CCM uses to store patient lists, patient contact details and information, medical treatment records, patient appointment histories, drug register information, pricing and billing information, and to manage the diary of patient appointments and billing processes. I note that CCM submitted that its confidential information was stored on the Oasis system, with the exception of the drug register and a folder containing a copy of CCM’s contracts with its employees and licensees. Ms Hamilton gave evidence that CCM’s drug register is recorded in Oasis and is also maintained in hard copy form. CCM cosmetic physicians and employees have access to the hard copy drug register which is stored in an unlocked cupboard at the Drummoyne clinic and which is frequently used by CCM nurses and cosmetic physicians in the daily conduct of their practice. Both the hard copy drug register and the folder of contracts with employees and licensees are stored at CCM’s Drummoyne clinic, according to Ms Hamilton’s evidence.

26. Although Ms Hamilton gave evidence that cosmetic physicians working at CCM are also given access to all of CCM’s information described above, access to the Oasis system is by user login and Ms Hamilton’s evidence referred to user logins being provided to employees of CCM only. According to Dr Chater’s evidence, she was not provided with a user login to access the Oasis system. She received daily diary bookings for patients at CCM clinics, but she did not receive any CCM patient or contact lists. Dr Chater did not have access the drug register in hard copy form and was never asked to make any record in that document. She recorded medications administered to patients on the patient’s digital file.

27. At the times relevant to these proceedings, Ms Leonard had access to Oasis with the user login “SallyL”. Dr Chater and Ms Leonard gave evidence that Ms Leonard would log in to the Oasis system as “SallyL” on two separate computers at the Bowral clinic so that Dr Chater could use one of those computers to enter notes of treatments in the patients’ digital files in Oasis. Dr Chater used her own mobile phone for the purpose of calling patients for aftercare. I assume that she looked up their contact details recorded in Oasis in order to make those calls.

28. Dr Chater gave evidence that she was provided with recommended retail pricing information by CCM. The evidence does not disclose whether that information was recorded in the Oasis system to which Dr Chater had access through Ms Leonard’s user login, or whether it was provided to Dr Chater in some other form. There is no evidence as to whether any recommended retail pricing information provided to Dr Chater during the term of her Licence Agreement has been retained by Dr Chater or whether it remains current as at the time of the hearing of CCM’s application for interim relief.

29. The reconciliation lists that Ms Hamilton provided to Dr Chater for the purpose of the monthly licence fee calculation, as referred to at [21] above included patient names, type of treatment, and financial information relevant to that treatment. Those lists did not include contact details for patients. There is no evidence as to whether Dr Chater retained those reconciliation lists after the licence fee for the relevant month had been paid. If and to the extent that she did so, there is no evidence of any reason why she was not entitled to retain them as part of her records of her income earned as a licensee of CCM.

30. According to Ms Hamilton’s evidence, Dr Chater did not introduce any patients from her East Ryde Medical Practice to CCM’s Drummoyne clinic, and all of the patients that Dr Chater treated at CCM clinics were either pre-existing CCM clients or clients that came to CCM due to its reputation and that CCM referred internally to Dr Chater because she was available to perform the required treatments or services. Ms Hamilton exhibited to her affidavit a report produced from CCM’s Oasis system which Ms Hamilton and Ms Buick described as a list of all patients seen by Dr Chater at CCM’s Drummoyne and Bowral clinics. The list names 1237 patients. Ms Hamilton deposed that the list identifies the referral source for each patient, from which she extrapolates that Dr Chater referred only seven of the patients on the list of 1237 to CCM because only seven entries in the list have the code STAFF or DOC (being the codes used to identify when a patient has been referred by the cosmetic physician).

31. Ms Hamilton’s evidence that the list identifies the referral source for each patient is incorrect. The list has an entry in the column for referral source for approximately one quarter of the first 270 listed names, and many of those entries state “No info on Refer”. For the remaining 967 names in the list, the referral information column is devoid of any code or other information, with the exception of two names, both of which are said to have been referred by an existing patient.

32. For the purpose of determining CCM’s application for interim relief, Ms Hamilton’s evidence that CCM referred to Dr Chater all but seven of the patients treated by her at CCM’s Drummoyne and Bowral clinics, extrapolated from her assertion that the list identifies the referral source for each of the 1237 patients, carries no weight because the assertion is falsified by the list.

33. Ms Buick exhibited to her affidavit a list of 488 patient names which she described as a list extracted from Oasis of all patients seen by Dr Chater at CCM’s Bowral clinic. As I understand the evidence, that list of 488 patient names is a subset of the list of 1237 patient names. The list of 488 patient names contains no information about how any those patients came to be seen by or referred to Dr Chater.

34. According to Dr Chater’s evidence, there was a section in CCM’s intake form for new patients which offered the patient the opportunity to identify the source of their referral to CCM, but that section was frequently left blank by patients when completing the form. Dr Chater denies that CCM referred patients to her.

35. Dr Chater gave evidence that she introduced many patients to CCM, including patients with whom she had pre-existing relationships at East Ryde Medical Practice, patients she knew through her social contacts, and patients with whom she connected by advertising her services on her own Instagram account which she had established in November 2021 prior to entering into the Licence Agreement with CCM. Dr Chater gave evidence that she developed strong therapeutic relationships with the patients she saw at CCM’s premises during the term of the Licence Agreement.

36. On 19 December 2025 – CCM’s last trading day for 2025 - Dr Chater telephoned Ms Hamilton and informed her that she was leaving CCM and opening her own clinic in Bowral. According to Dr Chater’s evidence, she offered to assist CCM during January, and Ms Hamilton declined that offer. Shortly after the call terminated, Ms Hamilton blocked Dr Chater on social media and on CCM’s WhatsApp group. Ms Hamilton gave evidence denying that Dr Chater offered to assist CCM during January. There is no evidence that Ms Hamilton requested or required Dr Chater to provide medical services at CCM until the end of the one month notice period under clause 3 of the Licence Agreement. The Licence Agreement contained no exclusivity clause, and it will be recalled that Ms Hamilton accepts that the Licence Agreement did not preclude Dr Chater from providing medical services outside CCM during its term. [1] The same is true of the notice period.

37. Later that evening, Ms Leonard telephoned Ms Hamilton and informed her that she was resigning that day and was going to work with Dr Chater when she opened her new clinic in January.

38. Neither Dr Chater nor Ms Leonard returned to work at CCM Bowral after 19 December 2025.

39. Dr Chater’s plan to open her own clinic offering a range of medical services had been in the making since about early 2025. According to Ms Leonard’s evidence, Dr Chater occasionally expressed an interest in opening a practice in Bowral which would have a focus on general practice, women’s health and longevity and which would also incorporate cosmetic medicine. Ms Leonard recalls becoming aware in about January or February 2025 that Dr Chater was inspecting potential sites for a clinic. In about July 2025, Ms Leonard became aware that Dr Chater had secured premises. From time to time during the latter half of 2025, Dr Chater would update Ms Leonard about her plans for the new clinic. Ms Leonard gave evidence that she was not asked to, and did not, assist Dr Chater with any of the work she was undertaking towards establishing the clinic.

40. In about November 2025, Ms Leonard was looking to increase her working days and asked Dr Chater about the prospect of part-time employment at her proposed new clinic. Dr Chater indicated that she would like to employ Ms Leonard, but on a full-time basis. Dr Chater provided Ms Leonard with a proposed employment contract of employment on 27 November 2025. Ms Leonard told Dr Chater on 5 December 2025 that she would accept the offer of employment on those terms.

41. MBSI launched its website on 19 December 2025.

42. On 20 December 2025, Dr Chater posted on her Instagram account:

Behind the scenes this year, I have been working towards my dreams. It’s been a year full of blood sweat and tears, but I am now ready to share my exciting news. As you may know, I love cosmetic medicine and I also have a passion for holistic wellness, and so my vision is to intertwine both in one beautiful space.

To my lovely Drummoyne patients, I have so enjoyed treating you, and this opportunity is bitter sweet for me.

From January, the next chapters [sic] begins for me at @mindbodyskin_institute in the Southern Highlands.

To my @eastrydedoctors patients, I will still be available as usual.

Part of this journey is also about my family. We have small children, who need space, happiness and a gentler pace of life. I am excited to be joining the southern Highland’s [sic] community and ready for this new chapter!

For anyone who would like to see me, I would love for you to be part of this new journey.

43. MBSI opened the doors of its new Bowral clinic on 5 January 2026. Ms Leonard signed her employment contract with MBSI and commenced work on that day, her two-week notice period under clause 7 of her CCM Employment Contract having expired on 3 January 2026. Ms Leonard has no financial interest in the business of MBSI.

44. As I have already mentioned, MBSI offers patients general practice services (including women’s health and mental health), metabolic health services, skin services, cosmetic medicine and laser services. According to Dr Chater’s evidence, this is a broader range of services than those offered by CCM at its Bowral clinic where patients are offered cosmetic medicine services only. According to Ms Hamilton’s evidence, CCM also offers skin services and laser services. Ms Hamilton does not claim that CCM offers general practice services (including women’s health and mental health) or metabolic health services.

45. On 20 December 2025, Ms Hamilton instructed Ms Antonella Di Franco, a manager at CCM, to contact patients who had appointments booked at CCM with Dr Chater in the week commencing 5 January 2026. Ms Di Franco, who was not called to give evidence, later reported to Ms Hamilton, that eight of those patients had told her that Dr Chater had informed them that she was leaving CCM and opening her own clinic and/or had told them to “come across” to her new clinic and/or had provided them with business cards for her new clinic and/or that Ms Leonard had told them how to book appointments at Dr Chater’s new clinic. This evidence was admitted subject to an order limiting its use to evidence of what Ms Di Franco told Ms Hamilton, and not as evidence of the truth of what the eight clients are said to have told Ms Di Franco in eight separate conversations of which Ms Hamilton gives a rolled-up account based on what Ms Di Franco told her. I note that, according to Ms Hamilton’s evidence, the eight clients still had appointments booked with CCM in the week commencing 5 January 2026.

46. From 5 January 2026, Ms Hamilton instructed CCM reception staff to contact all patients who had future appointments with Dr Chater to advise them that she no longer worked with CCM and to seek to reschedule those appointments. According to Ms Hamilton’s evidence, those communications elicited responses from a further seven patients to the effect that Dr Chater had told them that she was leaving CCM and, in some instances, had provided them with the business card for her new clinic. At least one of those patients was a patient of CCM’s clinic at Drummoyne rather than Bowral. Dr Chater sent a text message to that patient explaining that she would not be returning to CCM, that she would be opening a new clinic in Bowral, but that she understood that the new clinic may be too far for the patient and that the patient may like to stay with CCM. According to Dr Chater’s evidence, she specifically informed Ms Hamilton that she intended to contact that patient because she believed it would be damaging to the patient’s mental health to simply move away from their established therapeutic relationship without explanation. Five of the seven patients told CCM staff that they had decided to follow Dr Chater. Ms Buick informed Ms Hamilton that one of the seven patients told Ms Buik that Dr Chater had told her (the patient) that CCM would be closing its Bowral clinic. Ms Buick gave evidence of conversations with a small number of CCM patients during the period from early January to early February 2026 that is consistent with Ms Hamilton’s evidence.

47. Dr Chater denies telling any patient of CCM that CCM would be closing its Bowral clinic, and gave a very different account of her conversation with the particular patient who Ms Hamilton and Ms Buick claim told them that Dr Chater had said that CCM would be closing. Dr Chater acknowledges that she gave one patient a business card for MBSI’s new clinic when the patient asked for her new contact details.

48. Dr Chater gave evidence that, on 19 December 2025, she called a limited number of patients from her personal mobile phone to inform them that she would no longer be practising at CCM and would not be available for their scheduled 2026 appointments at CCM, and to ensure that they were aware that CCM could arrange alternative care and that she had written a handover for the next practitioner. Some of those patients asked Dr Chater where she was going, and she told them about the new clinic to be opened by MBSI. She did not offer inducements to them to follow her to MBSI, did not request that they transfer their medical records to MBSI, and did not remove or copy any patient files or other confidential material.

49. Dr Chater’s evidence that she contacted only a limited number of patients is broadly consistent with the evidence of Ms Hamilton and Ms Buick referred to above and with the evidence referred to below that eleven 2026 appointments with Dr Chater at CCM Bowral were confirmed on her last day at the Bowral clinic 19 December 2025.

50. Ms Hamilton gave evidence to the effect that a review of CCM’s Oasis records carried out by Ms Hamilton and staff reporting to her identified multiple instances of patient appointments at CCM Bowral being cancelled in Oasis by the user with the login “SallyL” during the period from 20 November to 19 December 2025. Ms Buick gave evidence consistent with Ms Hamilton’s evidence. There was no evidence of the number of cancellations during that period with the number of cancellations during the same period in any previous year of the 24 years that CCM’s Bowral clinic has been operating. Counsel for the plaintiff did not assist the Court with any forensic analysis of the documentary records to which Ms Hamilton referred in this part of her evidence. My own review of a sample of the bookings that Ms Hamilton refers to as cancelled against the Oasis records tendered as part of Exhibit 1 identified three instances in which a patient whose appointment Ms Hamilton identified as being cancelled was in fact rebooked under a different entry made on the same day by “SallyL” for a different date and/or time. [2]

51. Ms Hamilton did give evidence asserting that the number of cancelled appointments during November and December 2025 was substantially higher than at any other time in the previous 12 months. I attribute no weight to that assertion for the purpose of determining this interlocutory application in circumstances where the primary documents were not tendered and I have identified two instances of incongruity between Ms Hamilton’s evidence about other documents that were tendered and the documents themselves. [3]

52. Dr Chater gave evidence that, in her experience, there was always a lot of movement in CCM’s bookings. Text message reminders would be sent to patients a few days prior to a scheduled appointment and it was not uncommon for many appointments to be cancelled or rescheduled for a variety of reasons personal to the patient. This is consistent with the evidence of Ms Leonard, who said that patient appointments were frequently varied throughout each day, including by rescheduling appointments to accommodate patient requests or practitioner availability, and extending or reducing the time allocated to an appointment. Ms Leonard described the appointment bookings as “actively managed” and “rarely static”.

53. Counsel for Ms Leonard prepared an analysis of the Oasis records for the period 6 November 2025 to 19 December 2025 which identified that, in addition to patient appointments with Dr Chater and other physicians being cancelled during this period, there were numerous instances of appointments with Dr Chater at CCM’s Bowral clinic in 2026 being booked or amended (that is, confirmed with changes to the precise date, time or the treatments to be provided) during the period from 6 November to 19 December 2025. The analysis shows that, on 19 December 2025, eleven appointments for patients with Dr Chater in 2026 were amended (that is, confirmed with changes to the timing or other details of the appointment).

54. Ms Leonard gave evidence of telephone communications with seven patients on 19 December 2025. Dr Chater had asked Ms Leonard to contact three of those patients in order to advise them that she would not be available to provide continued care for them. One of those patients asked Ms Leonard to cancel her future appointment and two of them asked Ms Leonard to cancel their future appointments on the basis that they would re-book when they knew who would be replacing Dr Chater. A fourth patient telephoned Ms Leonard to cancel an appointment that had been made for her the previous day for which she had been waitlisted. A fifth patient telephoned to cancel the appointment that she had made for herself the previous day. The sixth and seventh patients were persons to whom Ms Leonard provided teeth whitening services at CCM’s Bowral clinic by arrangement with Ms Hamilton, and Ms Leonard telephoned them to let them know that she would no longer be available. One of those two patients asked Ms Leonard to cancel her future appointment with Dr Chater, as she had heard that Dr Chater was leaving CCM and Ms Leonard was not able to provide any information about who would be replacing Dr Chater. Ms Leonard gave evidence denying soliciting any patients of CCM for Dr Chater or MBSI.

55. Ms Buick gave evidence that the cancellations included 14 appointments cancelled using the “SallyL” login on the afternoon of 19 December 2025 for patients who were regular clients of Dr Chater at CCM’s Bowral clinic.

56. Dr Chater gave evidence that she cancelled January 2026 bookings for about 14 patients on 19 December 2025 at the request of those patients. Dr Chater denied cancelling or amending any future patient appointment other than at the patient’s request.

57. Ms Hamilton gave evidence that, on about 21 December 2025, she became aware that the file containing the original and hard copies of all employee contracts and licence agreements with cosmetic physicians engaged by CCM had gone missing from Ms Hamilton’s office at CCM’s Drummoyne clinic. Ms Hamilton deposed that, in 24 years of owning and operating CCM, this folder had never before gone missing.

58. Ms Hamilton also gave evidence that she became aware on or about 23 January 2026 that the drug register stored in a drawer in room 5 at CCM’s Drummoyne clinic had gone missing. According to Ms Hamilton’s evidence, the drug register is a hard copy document in which each cosmetic physician is required to fill out each and every time they take and administer any pharmaceuticals to any patient. Ms Hamilton gave evidence that it had not been necessary to use the drug register between 15 December 2025 and her discovery that it was missing on 23 January 2026.

59. Ms Hamilton deposed that she is concerned and believes that the folder of employee contracts and licence agreements and the drug register were taken by Dr Chater, whose last day of work at CCM’s Drummoyne clinic was 17 December 2025. The evidence does not identify any reason why either of those documents would be of interest or value to Dr Chater either for the purpose of MBSI’s new clinic or for any other reason. Dr Chater denies taking the folder of contracts or the drug register.

60. There is no evidence that Dr Chater or Ms Leonard copied, removed or exported any information from CCM’s Oasis system or from any other electronic information repository of CCM. Both Dr Chater and Ms Leonard deny any allegation that they copied, removed, or exported any such information.

61. Ms Leonard gave evidence that the friends and acquaintances for whom she stores contact information in her personal mobile phone include 15 persons who happen to be patients of CCM’s Bowral clinic.

62. Dr Chater gave evidence that, since terminating her Licence Agreement with CCM, she has marketed MBSI’s new clinic widely through her own personal brand (which she has developed through her personal Instagram account since November 2021 and which has more than 1500 followers), through a social media campaign conducted by a global social media management and marketing agency, and through Instagram and Facebook pages that she has created for MBSI with the assistance of the agency. The social media campaign has been directed towards placing content in the feeds of users located in the Southern Highlands region whose profile indicates an interest in general practice, skin health, cosmetic medicine or wellness content more broadly. The campaign has achieved substantial reach. The first post to the MBSI Instagram page on 20 December 2025 achieved approximately 15,700 views. Further posts made during the period from January to April 2026 obtained comparable reach.

63. In addition to the social media marketing campaign, Dr Chater has advertised extensively with “The Fold”, which is a local publication and digital platform based in the Southern Highlands with a substantial local following, and has conducted letterbox leaflet drops and business card deliveries in Bowral, Mittagong and Moss Vale.

64. Dr Chater gave evidence that her marketing through social media, “The Fold”, and leaflet drops and business card deliveries has not referred to her former association with CCM, has not been directed to particular individuals, and has not made use of any patient list or patient contact details from CCM.

65. Dr Chater also gave evidence that MBSI has sponsored local competitions and sporting clubs, and that her day-to-day interactions with members of the Southern Highlands community has produced a substantial volume of organic word-of-mouth referral of business to MBSI.

66. Ms Hamilton gave evidence that she holds the following concerns, based on her evidence which I have summarised above:

67. that Ms Leonard and/or Dr Chater contacted patients and persuaded them to cancel appointments with CCM to and to follow Dr Chater to her new clinic in Bowral;

68. that Dr Chater and/or Ms Leonard have “diverted” up to 114 patients from CCM, and possibly more, as 114 patients previously seen by Dr Chater and other physicians at CCM’s Bowral clinic no longer have future appointments at the clinic, and 48 of those clients have elected to cancel future appointments when contacted to reschedule their appointments with Dr Chater;

69. that, of the 488 individual patients that Dr Chater treated at CCM’s Bowral clinic, only 49 have either returned to or rescheduled their appointments with CCM which is “a level of dropout … far greater than I have ever experienced or witnessed in the past 24 years of operating CCM”; and

70. that CCM will suffer reputational damage associated with the false representation that CCM would be closing its Bowral clinic.

71. Ms Hamilton gave evidence to the effect that the gross revenue for CCM’s Bowral clinic fell by 50% during January to February 2026 compared to the same period in 2025 and that the downturn in revenue has increased during March and April 2026.

72. Ms Hamilton also gave evidence that a number of clients of CCM’s Bowral clinic are not responding to calls and messages from CCM reception staff seeking to confirm their appointments. The CCM Bowral clinic has had appointment availability and no waitlist for the past four months, which is contrary to the previous pattern of physicians being booked out months in advance. Ms Hamilton gave evidence that she is “concerned that this pattern indicates that the defendants are continuing to misuse CCM’s confidential client information” and she is further concerned that “if that continues, the CCM Bowral clinic will never financially recover and may have to close.”

73. Dr Chater gave evidence that, if the injunctive relief sought by CCM is granted, she will be unable to provide ongoing care to existing clients of MBSI who happen to have been past patients of CCM, including some patients who are receiving medical services at MBSI of a kind that are not offered by CCM. The Southern Highlands would lose access to one of the few specialist General Practitioners practising in general practice, women’s health and metabolic health in the region, and her own professional reputation within the community would be harmed.

Consideration and determination

Principles to be applied in determining claims for interim injunctions

70. A plaintiff applying for an interim injunction must establish that: [4]

71. its claim for final relief raises a serious question to be tried in the sense that, if the evidence remains as it is, there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be entitled to relief;

72. if the interim injunction is not granted, the plaintiff is likely to suffer harm for which damages will not be an adequate remedy; and

73. the balance of convenience favours the grant of the interim injunction.

74. The first requirement does not require the plaintiff to show that it is more probable than not that its client will succeed at trial. It is sufficient if the plaintiff shows “a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial”. [5]

75. Factors to be weighed in assessing the balance of convenience include any relevant delay by the plaintiff in making the application. The Court is entitled to have regard to any such delay as “a litmus test” of the seriousness of the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s rights. [6]

Clause 21 of the Licence Agreement

73. The Licence Agreement is a commercial contract. Clause 21 of the Licence Agreement must be construed objectively in the context of the provisions of the Licence Agreement as a whole and in accordance with established principles. As the High Court said in Electricity Generation Corporation (t/as Verve Energy) v Woodside Energy Ltd, [7] and re-affirmed in Simic v New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation: [8]

The meaning of the terms of a commercial contract is to be determined by what a reasonable businessperson would have understood those terms to mean. That approach is not unfamiliar. As reaffirmed, it will require consideration of the language used by the parties, the surrounding circumstances known to them and the commercial purpose or objects to be secured by the contract. Appreciation of the commercial purpose or objects is facilitated by an understanding ‘of the genesis of the transaction, the background, the context [and] the market in which the parties are operating’. As Arden LJ observed in Re Golden Key Ltd, unless a contrary intention is indicated, a court is entitled to approach the task of giving a commercial contract a businesslike interpretation on the assumption ‘that the parties … intended to produce a commercial result’. A commercial contract is to be construed so as to avoid it ‘making commercial nonsense or working commercial inconvenience’.

74. Reading the terms of the Licence Agreement as a whole, it is plain that its commercial purpose was to facilitate Dr Chater using the premises and facilities of CCM in order to treat patients, to ensure that Dr Chater bore the costs of consumables used during those treatments, to share between Dr Chater and CCM the revenue generated by such treatments through the payment of the licence fee calculated in accordance with clauses 14 to 20 of the Licence Agreement, and to protect CCM’s revenue stream from “CCM Clients” referred to in clause 21.

75. Clauses 6 to 17 of the Licence Agreement describe the persons to whom Dr Chater as licensee provides medical services at CCM’s premises as “patients”.

76. As Dr Chater submitted, Clause 21 of the Licence Agreement introduces the defined term “CCM Clients”, which is used only in that clause. The first two sentences of clause 21 define “CCM Clients” as clients that CCM may identify to Dr Chater or for whom CCM may provide contact information to Dr Chater “as clients who may wish to make use of your medical services”. Dr Chater’s obligations under clause 21 of the Licence Agreement apply to “CCM Clients” as defined.

77. It is common ground between Dr Chater and CCM that the Licence Agreement did not require Dr Chater to provide medical services to patients exclusively from CCM’s premises. [9] Similarly, CCM was under no obligation to procure patients to whom Dr Chater could provide medical services at CCM clinics. To the extent that Dr Chater did provide medical services to any patients at CCM clinics, the licence fee was payable to CCM in accordance with clauses 14 to 20 of the Licence Agreement.

78. Dr Chater submitted that the reasonable businessperson, reading the Licence Agreement as a whole, understanding its purpose and the matters referred to immediately above, and reading the language of first two sentences in clause 21, would understand the term “CCM Clients” in those sentences to have a narrower meaning than the term “patient” which is used in clauses 6 to 20 of the Licence Agreement to refer to any person to whom Dr Chater provided medical services at CCM’s premises. Dr Chater submitted that the reasonable businessperson would understand that “CCM Clients” in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words used in the first sentence of clause 21 – namely, as meaning patients in respect of whom CCM gave Dr Chater a lead by identifying them to her or by providing her with their contact information as person who may wish to make use of Dr Chater’s medical services. Accordingly, it was submitted that the obligations under clause 21 not to provide medical services “to any CCM Client” other than at CCM’s premises, and not to provide medical services “to any CCM Client” for one year after termination of the Licence Agreement, applies only to those patients in respect of whom CCM gave Dr Chater a lead.

79. In my opinion, Dr Chater’s construction of clause 21 is consistent with the principles that apply to the construction of commercial contracts and is strongly arguable.

80. CCM submitted that the term “CCM Clients” should be construed as meaning any and all patients of CCM or, alternatively, any and all patients who were treated by Dr Chater at CCM’s premises during the term of the Licence Agreement. In my opinion, that submission fails to engage with the applicable principles. The submission did not articulate any reason why the reasonable businessperson would attribute such an intention to the parties despite their use of the distinct defined term “CCM Clients” in clause 21 rather than the term “patient” that is used in clauses 6 to 20 of the Licence Agreement. The submission asserted that the evident purpose of clause 21 is to “protect CCM’s client base”. That submission avoids the question of who are the “CCM Clients” as defined in clause 21 and fails to engage with words used in the first sentence of the clause. The submission is so weak that it is barely arguable.

81. Alternatively, CCM submitted that, because Dr Chater had access to its Oasis system which recorded patient contact details, CCM had provided contact information to Dr Chater in respect of all CCM patients during the term of the Licence Agreement, and that all CCM patients therefore fell within the definition of “CCM Clients” to which clause 21 of the Licence Agreement applies. That construction is barely arguable for the same reasons as the primary submission referred to above and ignores the language of clause 21 – “may identify to you or provide you with contact information”. The ordinary meaning of those words conveys some active step on the part of CCM vis-à-vis Dr Chater in respect of a particular patient before that patient will fall within the definition of a “CCM Client” in clause 21. The maintenance of client data on Oasis which was accessible to CCM employees by use of the login assigned to them by CCM and (according to the evidence presently before the Court) which was also accessible to any cosmetic physician providing services at CCM at any given time by making use of an employee’s login, does not constitute such an active step.

82. Counsel for Dr Chater also submitted that, properly, construed, the last sentence of clause 21 of the Licence Agreement provides exhaustively for the remedy to which CCM is entitled in respect of any breach of clause 21. In my opinion, it is strongly arguable that a reasonable businessperson with knowledge that the Licence Agreement did not preclude Dr Chater from practising elsewhere even during its term, would understand the parties to have intended the last sentence of clause 21 to protect CCM’s commercial interest in receiving a share of the revenue generated by Dr Chater in respect of any “CCM Clients” in respect of which CCM gave Dr Chater a lead if she treated those patients outside of CCM’s premises. That is to say, it is strongly arguable that that the reasonable businessperson would understand the last sentence of clause 21 as specifying the sole remedy to which CCM would be entitled in the event of any breach of clause 21.

83. CCM’s submission that clause 21 should be read as specifying a remedy, but leaving it open to CCM to claim other remedies, was founded on an implicit assumption that the object of the clause is to protect CCM’s goodwill and customer connection. CCM’s submissions characterised clause 21 as a “restraint clause”. That approach impermissibly starts with the object that CCM wishes to achieve in these proceedings, rather than starting with the words used by the parties in clause 21 read in the context of the Licence Agreement as a whole and having regard to its purpose and the surrounding circumstances to which I have referred at [77] above. CCM’s submission is barely arguable for that reason.

Implied obligation of good faith

84. It is strongly arguable that the Licence Agreement included an implied obligation for the parties to act in good faith towards each other by cooperating to achieve the contractual objectives, by complying with honest standards of conduct, and by complying with standards of conduct that are reasonable having regard to the interests of the parties. [10]

85. However, an implied obligation of good faith does not extend to imposing obligations on a party that are, in effect, inconsistent with the terms of the agreement. [11] Thus, unless CCM’s barely arguable contentions concerning the construction of clause 21 of the Licence Agreement were to be accepted at trial, the implied obligation would not require Dr Chater for a period of 12 months after the termination of the Licence Agreement to refrain from treating patients whom she previously treated at CCM’s premises under the Licence Agreement, unless CCM had specifically identified those patients to Dr Chater, or provided her with contact information for those patients, as persons who may wish to make use of Dr Chater’s services.

Duty of confidence

86. CCM relied on an equitable duty of confidence owed by each of Dr Chater and Ms Leonard. CCM also relied on the “Confidentiality” clause of Ms Leonard’s Employment Agreement, but the application for interim relief proceeded on the basis that there was no material difference between the substance of that contractual obligation and the equitable duty.

87. An equitable duty of confidence arises when confidential information comes to the knowledge of a person in circumstances where they have notice that the information is confidential, so that it would be just in all the circumstances that they should be precluded from disclosing the information to others. In order to obtain an equitable remedy for a breach or apprehended breach of the duty, a plaintiff will typically need to identify the information specifically, and establish that it is of a confidential nature and that there has been actual or threatened unauthorised use of the information by the defendant to the detriment of the plaintiff. The confidential quality of the information is generally demonstrated by the information not being public property and public knowledge, and by steps taken by the plaintiff to protect the information and keep it largely to itself. [12]

The case against Dr Chater

88. CCM alleges that Dr Chater breached clause 3 of the Licence Agreement, which required her to give one month’s notice of termination of the Licence Agreement. As I have observed earlier in these reasons, [13] there is no evidence that Ms Hamilton requested or required Dr Chater to provide medical services at CCM until the end of the one month notice period that expired on 19 January 2026. Just as the Licence Agreement did not preclude Dr Chater from working outside CCM during its term, it did not preclude Dr Chater from providing services at MBSI’s clinic during the notice period. Contrary to the plaintiff’s submissions, there is nothing incongruous about Dr Chater being ready to assist CCM at the same time as MBSI commenced trading during the final weeks of the notice period for the termination of the Licence Agreement. As Dr Chater submitted, the evidence presently before the Court concerning her activities with MBSI during those final weeks do not give rise to a serious question to be tried in respect of the alleged breach of the requirement to give notice of termination under clause 3 of the Licence Agreement.

89. CCM alleges that Dr Chater breached clause 5 of the Licence Agreement by remaining in the Bowral clinic after hours on the afternoon of 19 December 2025 when the 14 appointments were cancelled. As Dr Chater submitted and for all the reasons explained below, this allegation does not give rise to a serious question to be tried that would support interim injunctive relief in the terms sought by CCM.

90. CCM alleges that Dr Chater breached clause 13 of the Licence Agreement. To the extent that this allegation relates to the alleged theft of the hard copy drug register and the folder of contracts from CCM’s Drummoyne premises, the evidence presently before the Court does not establish a serious question to be tried for the reasons explained at [97] below. To the extent that the allegation is intended to relate to other materials, CCM has failed to identify those materials and has therefore failed to establish a serious question to be tried.

91. CCM alleges that Dr Chater breached clause 21 of the Licence Agreement. That allegation turns on CCM’s construction of clause 21, and CCM’s evidence of the number of clients of its Bowral clinic who have ceased attending the clinic since MBSI commenced operations. The allegation does not raise a serious question to be tried because CCM’s construction of clause 21 is barely arguable for the reasons I have explained above, and there is no evidence that any of the patients treated by Dr Chater at MBSI are “CCM Clients” within the meaning of clause 21 on the construction of that clause which is strongly arguable. Ms Hamilton’s evidence referred to at [30]-[32] above carries no weight, and there is no other evidence that any of the 488 patients who were treated by Dr Chater at CCM’s Bowral clinic (including the 114 patients who no longer have future appointments at CCM’s Bowral clinic and the 48 patients who have cancelled future appointments when contacted by CCM to reschedule those appointments, who CCM infers are now being treated by Dr Chater at MBSI) [14] are patients who CCM identified to Dr Chater during the term of the Licence Agreement as clients who may wish to make use of her medical services or for whom CCM provided contact details to Dr Chater.

92. CCM alleges that Dr Chater breached the implied obligation of good faith and breached an equitable obligation of confidence by attempting to induce or inducing CCM patients to use the cosmetic medical services of Dr Chater and MBSI rather than CCM, by causing the deletion of client appointments, by communicating that CCM’s business was closing, and/or by engaging in the actual or threatened unauthorised use or disclosure of information confidential to CCM in a way that could be detrimental to CCM.

93. The evidence presently before the Court relevant to the allegation of inducement or attempted inducement of CCM patients to use the services of Dr Chater and MBSI is limited to the second- and third-hand accounts of what approximately fifteen clients said to CCM staff about what Dr Chater had told them concerning her leaving CCM (which Dr Chater denies in material respects), [15] and the evidence of Dr Chater and Ms Leonard that they contacted a limited number of patients to inform them that Dr Chater would not be available for their upcoming 2026 appointments. [16] The second- and third-hand accounts carry little weight. The communications of which Dr Chater and Ms Leonard gave evidence are consistent with a physician showing professional courtesy to a patient who might otherwise present for an appointment early in 2026 to learn that they were to be treated by a physician they had not chosen. Dr Chater and Ms Leonard’s evidence about the number of patients they contacted for that purpose is consistent with the pattern of cancellations and confirmations recorded in Oasis on 19 December 2025 for appointments booked with Dr Chater in 2026. [17] That evidence, in its present state and considered as a whole, would not support a finding that Dr Chater’s communications with patients (or the communications that she requested Ms Leonard to engage in) were in bad faith, dishonest or unreasonable or involved the disclosure or misuse of CCM’s confidential records of patient contact details. CCM’s submission failed to articulate any cogent reason why the use of those patient contact details to make communications that any patient would expect to receive from their treating physician as a matter of courtesy constituted an unauthorised use of the patient contact information. It is not to the point that the Licence Agreement did not expressly permit or authorise Dr Charter to engage in such communications with patients. The Licence Agreement also did not expressly permit or authorise Dr Chater to contact patients to check on their condition after surgery. Dr Chater did so in the ordinary course of and ancillary to providing medical services to those patients.

94. The evidence presently before the Court provides no foundation for CCM’s submission that Dr Chater (or Ms Leonard) communicated with at least 114 clients of CCM with a view to persuading them to cease booking cosmetic medical services with CCM and to book with MBSI. There is no apparent basis for Ms Hamilton’s evidence of her “concern” that Dr Chater (or Ms Leonard) may have “diverted” 114 patients from CCM’s Bowral clinic, other than an assumption that the failure of those patients to book ongoing treatments at CCM’s Bowral clinic is attributable to “diversion” activities of Dr Chater (or Ms Leonard) rather than to MSBI’s marketing campaign and a desire of those patients to receive ongoing cosmetic medicine treatment from Dr Chater and/or to make use of the broader range of services offered by Dr Chater at MBSI. For the reasons explained above, the evidence presently before the Court does not support the assumption implicit in Ms Hamilton’s “concern”.

95. The evidence presently before the Court would not support an inference that there was an atypically high number of cancellations or deletions of appointments with Dr Chater in the period from November to December 2025. The evidence presently before the Court is that the 14 cancellations recorded in Oasis on the afternoon of 19 December 2025 were made by Dr Chater at the request of patients to whom she had made the courtesy calls to which I have referred above. [18]

96. The evidence presently before the Court that is relevant to the allegation that Dr Chater communicated that CCM’s Bowral clinic was closing is the second- and third-hand accounts of what Ms Hamilton and Ms Buick depose that one patient told Ms Buick that Dr Chater had said to her, and Dr Chater’s denial that she made any such statement. [19] On a final hearing, Dr Charter’s evidence giving her direct account of her conversation with that patient would be afforded greater weight than the second and third-hand evidence of Ms Buick and Ms Hamilton.

97. In the absence of any evidence identifying a reason why CCM’s drug register and folder of employee and licensee contracts would have been of use or interest to Dr Chater in December 2025, Ms Hamilton’s “concern” and “belief” that Dr Chater took those documents from CCM’s Drummoyne premises is a bare assertion based on speculation. As Dr Chater submitted, that is a wholly inadequate evidentiary basis for such a serious allegation.

98. As I have observed earlier in these reasons, CCM has adduced no forensic or other evidence capable of supporting a finding at final hearing that Dr Chater (or Ms Leonard) copied, removed or exported any information from CCM’s Oasis system or from any other system or records of CCM. As Dr Chater submitted, the terms of the interim injunctions sought by CCM were drafted by reference to categories of information described in nine categories in the schedule to the summons. With the exception of category one (which relates to CCM’s client/patient lists), those categories fail to identify with specificity the allegedly confidential information in respect of which CCM seeks interim and final relief.

99. CCM’s submissions at the hearing of the application for interim relief emphasised that Dr Chater (and Ms Leonard) have information “in their minds*”* about the identity of the patients treated at CCM’s Bowral clinic. It may be accepted that Dr Chater (and Ms Leonard) likely have that information “in their minds*”*, at least in relation to some patients. It does not follow that they have used or misused that information in breach of an equitable obligation of confidence, or that they have threatened to do so.

100. For all of those reasons, CCM has failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried in respect of its allegations that Dr Charter breached clause 21 or any other express term of her Licence Agreement, its allegation that Dr Charter breach a duty of good faith implied in that Licence Agreement, and its allegation that Dr Charter breached or has threatened to breach an equitable duty of confidence.

101. CCM’s submissions emphasised Dr Chater’s failure to disclose to CCM her plans to establish a new clinic, and her activities directed to that aim, throughout 2025. CCM’s submissions complained that Dr Chater had acted “surreptitiously”. However, as I have stated earlier in these reasons, the Licence Agreement did not preclude Dr Chater from working outside CCM during its term – whether in her own practice or as employee or contractor of a practice operated by a third party. CCM’s submissions failed to articulate any reason why, in that context, Dr Chater’s conduct in planning for the new clinic and taking steps to bring those plans to fruition in her own time throughout 2025 was contrary to the duty of good faith implied in the Licence Agreement. In the absence of any serious question to be tried in respect of the alleged breaches of the equitable duty of confidence discussed above, CCM’s complaint about Dr Chater’s “surreptitious” conduct adds nothing to its other claims discussed above.

102. The evidence presently before the Court does not establish that Dr Chater, MBSI or Ms Leonard have any CCM medical treatment records or other records that are the subject of the injunction sought by CCM for delivery up. The further injunction sought by CCM restraining Dr Chater (and Ms Leonard and MBSI) from destroying or altering any medical treatment records would restrain conduct that would be contrary to s 25 of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (NSW), as Dr Chater submitted. There is no evidence of any conduct or apprehended conduct on the part of Dr Chater (or Ms Leonard and MBSI) that would warrant the granting of such an injunction. [20]

103. CCM’s claims for the interim injunctions sought against Dr Chater must therefore be dismissed. [21]

104. Even if CCM had established a serious question to be tried in respect of one or more aspects of its claims against Dr Chater, I would have declined to grant interim injunctions on account of CCM’s four-month delay in commencing these proceedings, for no explanation is disclosed by the evidence. I reject CCM’s submission that it has acted responsibly by taking time to “investigate” before commencing these proceedings. There was no evidence of any investigations made by CCM other than the telephone calls to CCM clients referred to at [45]-[46] above during the period from late December to early February 2026. There was no evidence of any information that came to the attention of CCM after early January 2026 (or, at the latest, early February 2026) that is capable of explaining CCM’s delay until 16 April 2026 in commencing these proceedings. CCM’s delay undermines the claimed seriousness of the alleged infringements of CCM’s rights by Dr Chater (and Ms Leonard and MBSI). [22] A further matter that would have weighed against the granting of the interim injunction is that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breach of clause 21 of the Licence Agreement if any such breach is established at final hearing, as evidenced by the terms of clause 21 discussed at [82]-[83] above.

The case against Ms Leonard

105. CCM alleges that Ms Leonard “prematurely breached” her “termination notice period”. That allegation raises no serious question to be tried. Clause 7 of the Employment Contract required Ms Leonard to give two weeks’ notice of termination, which she did on 19 December 2025 before commencing with MBSI on 5 January 2026. [23] As counsel for Ms Leonard submitted, there is no evidence that CCM required Ms Leonard to work at the Bowral clinic in the period from 20 December 2025 to 4 January 2026. As I understand the evidence, the Bowral clinic was closed during that period. Contrary to CCM’s submissions, there is nothing unusual, let alone wrong, about an employee accepting an offer of employment with a new employer, as Ms Leonard did with MBSI on 5 December 2025, before giving notice of termination to their existing employer under their existing employment contract.

106. CCM also alleges that Ms Leonard breached clauses 6(a), (b) and (c) and the Confidentiality Clause of her Employment Agreement and an obligation of good faith implied in her Employment Agreement by her part in the alleged conduct referred to at [92]-[95] above which CCM contends involved the use by Ms Leonard of information that was confidential to CCM other than as necessary in the course of her employment with CCM. CCM’s case against Ms Leonard is otherwise dependent on its case against Dr Chater in that Ms Leonard is alleged to have encouraged or assisted Dr Chater’s conduct. CCM’s submissions emphasised Ms Leonard’s knowledge of Dr Chater’s plan to establish her own clinic, her intention to accept employment at the new clinic from about November 2025 and, in that context, agreeing to be photographed (in her own time) for the purpose of the new clinic’s future marketing activities in November 2025.

107. CCM has failed to establish that its claims against Ms Leonard raise a serious question to be tried, for the same reasons as I have explained above in relation to CCM’s claims against Dr Chater.

108. Even if CCM had established a serious question to be tried in respect of one or more aspects of its claims against Ms Leonard, I would have declined to grant interim injunctions for the same reasons as I have explained above in relation to CCM’s claims against Dr Chater.

The case against MBSI

109. CCM’s case against MBSI is dependent on its case against Dr Chater in that either the conduct of Dr Chater is alleged to be conduct of MBSI, or MBSI is alleged to have encouraged or assisted in Dr Chater’s conduct. CCM has failed to establish a serious question to be tried in relation to its claims for relief against MBSI for the same reasons that has failed to establish a serious question to be tried in relation to its claims against Dr Chater.

110. Even if CCM had established a serious question to be tried in respect of one or more aspects of its claims against MBSI, I would have declined to grant interim injunctions for the same reasons as I have explained above in relation to CCM’s claims against Dr Chater.

Conclusion and orders

111. For all of the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Court are as follows:

112. Order that the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 16 April 2026 is dismissed.

113. Order that the plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs of the notice of motion on the ordinary basis, as agreed or assessed.

114. Direct that Exhibit 1 (being the Confidential Court Book) be returned to the plaintiff’s solicitors.

**********

Endnotes

See [14] above.

Patient 12 on 27 November 2025, Patient 357 on 12 December 2025, Patient 177 on 18 December 2025.

See [30]-[32] and [50] above.

Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618; [1968] HCA 1 at 622-623 (Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Owen JJ); Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199; [2001] HCA 63, especially at [8]-[13], [18] (Gleeson CJ), [91] (Gummow and Hayne JJ, Gaudron JJ agreeing); Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46 (O’Neill) at [19] (Gleeson CJ and Crennan J) and [65] (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

O’Neill at [65] (Gummow and Hayne JJ); Papas v Grave [2013] NSWCA 308 at [83] (Emmett JA, Sackville AJA agreeing).

Capgemini US LLC v Case [2004] NSWSC 674 (Capgemini) at [40] (Campbell J, as his Honour then was); Breedon v Oosthuizen [2023] NSWSC 859 at [56] (Meek J) and the authorities there referred to.

(2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7 at [35] (French CJ, Hayne, Crennan and Kiefel JJ) (citations omitted).

(2016) 260 CLR 85; [2016] HCA 47 at [78] (Gageler, Nettle and Gordon JJ).

See [14] above.

Cordon Investments Pty Ltd v Lesdor Properties Pty Ltd (2013) 29 BCL 329; [2012] NSWCA 184 at [144]-[145] (Bathurst CJ, Macfarlan and Meagher JJA agreeing).

Ibid at [146].

Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd v City of Sydney (2013) 85 NSWLR 196; [2013] NSWCA 2 at [153]-[162] (Barrett JA, Meagher and Ward JJA agreeing) and the authorities there referred to.

See [36] above.

See [66] above.

See [45]-[47] above.

See [48] and [54] above.

See [50]-[53] above.

See [50]-[56] above.

See [46]-[47] above.

See [6(5)] above.

See [6] above.

Capgemini at [40] (Campbell J, as his Honour then was).

See [37] and [43] above.