Consideration
29 The principles applicable to the application for an interlocutory injunction are well established: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, at [19] (per Gleeson CJ and Crennan J) and at [65]-[72] (per Gummow and Hayne JJ); Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238, at [44]-[74] (per Dowsett, Foster and Yates JJ).
30 The applicant must show that they have a prima facie case, and that the balance of convenience favours the injunction being granted: O'Neill at [19]. I have determined the applicant satisfies these requirements.
31 The applicant submits it has a strong prima facie case against Mr Parthy, at least on the breaches of his employment agreement and in breach of his statutory and equitable duties.
32 Mr Parthy submitted the intellectual property rights to the Figma account are his alone. Conversely, the applicant contended a number of other Grow MF staff also contribute to Figma, as well as each of the other systems.
33 At a provisional level, I am satisfied the evidence shows that Mr Parthy owed certain duties to Grow MF under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), pursuant to his employment agreement and in equity, and has, in breach of those duties, removed Grow MF's access to the GrowMetrics accounts and has refused to restore that access.
34 I am also satisfied that the balance of convenience weighs against the respondent.
35 Mr Parthy is no longer employed at Grow MF yet has unauthorised control over the copyright works and confidential information of Grow MF.
36 The applicant submits the evidence demonstrates that the removal of access to the GrowMetrics account is preventing Grow MF from conducting its business, including servicing clients' needs, finalising the development of a new and approved application, and promoting the product to new customers.
37 I am satisfied Grow MF's commercial interests, including its continued business operations, are at serious risk if Mr Parthy continues to prevent Grow MF from accessing the GrowMetrics accounts.
38 Further, Grow MF is spending resources on staff and overheads that are not able to be properly utilised. I accept that it will be difficult to identify the impact on Grow MF's business, for example in relation to client retention, in order to remedy this harm completely.
39 Mr Parthy has been on notice of Grow MF's complaint since Friday 28 April 2023, and despite repeated requests has refused to restore access. Grow MF has acted promptly in bringing this application before the Court.
40 Although appreciating Mr Parthy may have a potential claim as to his alleged intellectual property rights in GrowMOFO 3.0 and his potential equity share in Grow MF, his affidavit does not identify any prejudice to him or any legitimate reason he has to restrain access to the GrowMetrics accounts.
41 In order to preserve the GrowMetrics accounts, and in particular given Mr Parthy's claims as to his alleged intellectual property rights contained within the GrowMetrics accounts, I sought an undertaking on behalf of the applicant that it will not delete, destroy, modify, take any step which is likely to damage any of the material held in the GrowMetrics' GitHub, production development environment (QA environment), Figma, Slack development account or Fireflies account.
42 For those reasons, the application for interlocutory injunctive relief contained within the originating application of 2 May 2023 was allowed.
I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Rofe.