Redflex Traffic Systems Pty Ltd v Acusensus IP Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1382

1. By interlocutory application dated 10 October 2025, the respondents (the Acusensus Parties) seek an order striking out the amended statement of claim in whole or in part, which was filed by the applicant (Redflex). Redflex seeks to file a further amended statement of claim in the form attached to its written submissions dated 27 October 2025.
2. The proceedings concern the alleged misuse of confidential information by the third respondent (Mr Jannink), and the alleged receipt and misuse of that information by the first respondent (Acusensus IP) and the second respondent (Acusensus Limited). Mr Jannink is the managing director of Acusensus Limited and a director of its subsidiary, Acusensus IP.
3. The basis of the strikeout application is the contention that the pleading fails to identify the alleged confidential information with specificity, and fails to identify, sufficiently, the alleged misuse of the confidential information. As the Acusensus Parties submit, it is well established that confidential information must be defined with precision, and that the disclosure or use of that information which is said to constitute a misuse of that information is specified with particularity: Agility CIS Ltd v White [2021] FCA 1145 at [10] (Anderson J), citing Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd v Galli [1985] VicRp 68; [1985] VR 675 at 711 (Crockett, Murphy and Ormiston JJ).
4. Further, as the Acusensus Parties submit, a pleading must fulfil its basic function of identifying the matters in dispute: Oztech Pty Ltd v Public Trustee of Queensland [2019] FCAFC 102; (2019) 269 FCR 349 at [29] (Middleton, Perram and Anastassiou JJ). In that case, the Full Court cited with approval at [35] what was said by Mason CJ and Gaudron J in Banque Commerciale SA (En Liquidation) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279 at 286-287:

The function of pleadings is to state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met: In this way, pleadings serve to ensure the basic requirement of procedural fairness that a party should have the opportunity of meeting the case against him or her and, incidentally, to define the issues for decision.

1. The sufficiency of a pleading involves questions of degree which are to be resolved having regard to the function of pleadings as stating with sufficient clarity the case that must be met, in order to ensure procedural fairness. Of course, the parties themselves bring to bear in the dispute a considerable amount of background knowledge of which the court is ordinarily unaware, and which may have the effect of making the parties sufficiently aware of the issues in a way that may not be readily apparent to an outside observer who reads the pleading in the abstract.
2. These proceedings were commenced on 17 June 2025 by originating application and statement of claim. The alleged confidential information is referred to in paras [14] and [15] of the statement of claim as follows:
   1. During the conduct of the Redflex DDS Project and until the termination of Mr Jannink's employment with Redflex, information commercially valuable to, and trade secrets of, Redflex was developed, including but not limited to the following:
      1. The arrangement of the camera, infrared flash and radar trigger in tests conducted during the Redflex DDS Project;
      2. Information concerning the location and positioning of the camera in the Redflex DDS Project;
      3. Information concerning the type of camera used in the Redflex DDS Project, including the resolution (number of megapixels), exposure times, sensitivity to infrared flash and shutter speed;
      4. Information concerning the location of a radar trigger relative to the camera and infrared flash used in in the Redflex DDS Project;
      5. Information concerning the windshield penetrating infrared flash used in in the Redflex DDS Project;
      6. Information concerning the polarising filter used in the Redflex DDS Project;
      7. Information concerning the methods used at certain times of day or night and in certain weather conditions in order to correct images of drivers and/or vehicle number plates in the Redflex DDS Project;
      8. Information concerning the use of artificial intelligence to analyse images of vehicles captured during the Redflex DDS Project.

(together the Redflex System Confidential Information).

1. As of 31 December 2017, and at all material times since then, the Redflex System Confidential Information was observable in documents including but not limited to the following:

   1. Proposal entitled 1568c Mobile Phone Enforcement: Design Proposal - Imaging System;

   2. Presentation entitled Distracted Driving - Redflex Automated Distracted Driving Detection System Overview;

   3. Presentation entitled FY18 Product Development - Financial Justification;

   4. Meeting notes entitled MobilePhone Discussion.docx;

   5. Document entitled Distracted Driving Face Shots;

   6. Presentation entitled Product Development - March Board Presentation - March 2017;

   7. Spreadsheet entitled 850nm wide lens.xlsx;

   8. Pages accessible on Redflex's corporate wiki (Confluence).

(together the Redflex System Documents).

1. The alleged breach of confidentiality by disclosure and use of the alleged Redflex System Confidential Information was expressed as follows in paras [29] and [30] of the statement of claim:
   1. On a date or dates presently unknown to Redflex, but since at least 19 July 2018 Mr Jannink disclosed some or all of the Redflex System Confidential Information to Acusensus and Acusensus IP.

Particulars

(i) The Applicant repeats particulars to subparagraphs 26.a. and 26.b. above.

(ii) The 619 Patent Application was filed on 19 July 2018.

1. On a date or dates presently unknown to Redflex, the Respondents, or one or more of them, used and continue to use the Redflex System Confidential Information for a purpose other than the Permitted Purpose, namely to:

   1. design, develop, advertise, promote, use and manufacture the Heads-Up solution; and

b. instruct patent attorneys to draft the specifications for, and prosecute:

i. the 619 Patent Application;

ii. the 546 Patent;

iii. the 087 Patent;

iv. Australian standard patent no. 2019303737;

v. Australian standard patent no. 2021240327;

vi. Australian standard patent no. 2023270232; and

vii. the Foreign Filings.

Particulars

(i) The Applicant repeats particulars to subparagraphs 26.a. and 26.b. above.

(ii) The Second Respondent continues to advertise the Heads-Up solution, including at the website that resolves at https://www.acusensus.com/solutions/heads-up/.

1. Paragraph [26] of the statement of claim, to which cross-reference is made in the particulars to those paragraphs, was as follows:
   1. On a date or dates presently unknown to Redflex, but from at least 19 July 2018 Acusensus IP and Acusensus received some or all of the Redflex System Confidential Information from Mr Jannink, and thereby proceeded to:
      1. design, develop, advertise, promote, use and manufacture the Heads-Up solution; and

Particulars

(i) Acusensus was founded by Mr Jannink and incorporated on 26 March 2018;

(ii) In 2020 Acusensus indicated to potential investors that it had completed an intensive R&D phase between March 2018 and June 2018 and then submitted a request for proposal in New South Wales between July 2018 and December 2018; and

(iii) The First and Second Respondents received the Redflex System Confidential Information in order to develop the Heads-Up solution in this period following the termination of Mr Jannink's employment with Redflex on 31 December 2017.

b. instruct patent attorneys to draft the specifications for, and prosecute:

i. the 619 Patent Application;

ii. the 546 Patent;

iii. the 087 Patent;

iv. Australian standard patent no. 2019303737;

v. Australian standard patent no. 2021240327;

vi. Australian standard patent no. 2023270232; and

vii. the Foreign Filings.

Particulars

(i) The Applicant repeats particulars (i) and (ii) to subparagraph 26.a. above;

(ii) The Redflex System Confidential Information received by the First and Second Respondents included the inventive concepts disclosed in the patents and patent applications referred to in subparagraph 26. b above; and

(iii) The Redflex System Confidential Information was required in order to draft the claims of these patents and patent applications and to ensure that the specifications complied with the applicable drafting requirements.

1. On 1 July 2025, the proceedings came before me for a first case management hearing. The Acusensus Parties were represented by experienced senior counsel, and sought orders for the filing of their defence (within 28 days of being given access to the documents referred to in para [15] of the statement of claim), the filing and service of affidavits, the provision of non-standard discovery by way of categories and the fixing of a final hearing with an estimate of seven days. Senior counsel for the Acusensus Parties alleged that there had been "an extraordinary delay on the part of Redflex asserting its rights" (T7.21-23), referring to the allegations by Redflex having been first raised in December 2020 and having been debated between the parties until September 2021 (T7.36-37). It was said that the allegations had caused the public listing of Acusensus Limited to be deferred (T7.41). The allegations were then said to have been re-agitated in July 2024 and there was then further debate between the parties until October 2024 (T7.42-46). Senior counsel said that his clients refuted the allegations (T8.3), and wished to have the matter dealt with as quickly as possible (T8.4-5). Senior counsel referred to the allegations in the pleading as involving multiple causes of action, all arising out of the same fundamental proposition (T8.34-39).
2. No reference was made in the course of senior counsel's forceful advocacy to any deficiency in the statement of claim or to any difficulty the pleading would present for the tasks of filing a defence, giving discovery, preparing evidence by way of affidavits and contesting the final hearing. I have no doubt that if there were a genuine basis for the Acusensus Parties to have complained about the statement of claim in light of their knowledge of the dispute over the previous four and a half years, then they would have done so at that case management hearing.
3. I made orders for pleadings, discovery and the provisional fixing of a hearing in the fortnight commencing 20 April 2026, and deferred making orders for service of affidavits, particularly as the timetable for affidavits propounded by the Acusensus Parties appeared to me to be too leisurely to accommodate an expedited hearing in April 2026.
4. The Acusensus Parties filed their defence on 13 August 2025, indicating that it had been settled by different senior counsel. The defence alleged that the statement of claim failed to identify the alleged confidential information with particularity, such that references to the alleged confidential information and its alleged misuse should be struck out: see paras [14A] and [26A]. Those paragraphs refer to a confidential solicitor's letter of the same date. That appears to have been the first time that any complaint in relation to the statement of claim had been raised.
5. On 8 September 2025, Redflex filed an amended statement of claim. Significantly, paras [14] and [15] which made the central allegations as to confidential information were now particularised by reference to a confidential Annexure A to the amended statement of claim, and additional particulars were added to para [26(a)]. In other words, the amended statement of claim contained more particularity and specificity than the original statement of claim about which no complaint was made on 1 July 2025 when the timetabling orders were made and a provisional hearing date was fixed. The Acusensus Parties submit that the new particulars by way of the confidential annexure do not improve matters. However, more importantly, the Acusensus Parties do not submit that they made matters worse than the pleading that they had acquiesced in on 1 July 2025.
6. On 27 October 2025, I made orders by consent extending the timeframe for the Acusensus Parties to give discovery and make any further application concerning discovery pending the determination of this strikeout application. The consent orders also set a timetable for the hearing of the strikeout application.
7. On the same day, 27 October 2025, Redflex filed its written submissions which attached a draft further amended statement of claim that Redflex seeks to file, without making any admission that Redflex needed to give further specification of the confidential information. Substantial amendments are proposed in paras [14], [15], [26], [29] and [31] and elsewhere, and one of the effects of the amendments is to render the pleading and particulars more specific and detailed than was the case with either the original statement of claim or the amended statement of claim.
8. In my view, the further amended statement of claim is sufficiently pleaded and particularised. It would be prejudicial to the proper administration of justice for me to set out in a publicly available judgment the substance of the confidential annexure to the further amended statement of claim, as that would disclose the very information which Redflex seeks to keep confidential.
9. I also bear in mind that in litigation of this kind, pleadings are not the only means by which parties indicate to each other the case that must be met. The service of affidavits and written submissions before the hearing are also important steps in ensuring procedural fairness. In the present case, category 1 of the discovery sought by the Acusensus Parties concerns documents in which the claimed confidential information is observable, and Redflex is in a position to give that discovery within a week or so, as well as identifying any material in category 1 over which it does not claim confidentiality. That seems to me a practical and efficient way of Redflex defining the claim that it makes for confidential information. I will make orders later today in relation to that category of discovery as well as a category of documents to be discovered by the Acusensus Parties in relation to the Heads-Up solution product.
10. My conclusion that the further amended statement of claim is sufficiently pleaded and particularised is consistent with and reinforced by the procedural history of this matter. If there were any substance to the complaints of the Acusensus Parties, those complaints would have been raised at the case management hearing on 1 July 2025 when the pleading was much less specific and detailed than the amended statement of claim or the further amended statement of claim.
11. Accordingly, the interlocutory application should be dismissed and Redflex should be granted leave to file the further amended statement of claim.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman.