Worldplay Services Pty Ltd v George
[2003] QSC 419
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Worldplay Services Pty Ltd v George[2003] QSC 419
- Add to List
Worldplay Services Pty Ltd v George[2003] QSC 419
Worldplay Services Pty Ltd v George[2003] QSC 419
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HOLMES J
WORLDPLAY SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 100 713 086 | First Plaintiff |
and |
|
PACIFIC DELTA INVESTMENTS LIMITED | Second Plaintiff |
and |
|
QUENTIN DOUGLAS GEORGE | Defendant |
BRISBANE
DATE 05/11/2003
JUDGMENT
HER HONOUR: The applicant/first plaintiff provides an administrative type service and call centre for the purposes of the second plaintiffs business. The latter trades as World Games Incorporated which carries on a business of online gaming. Mr Kennedy, who's a deponent in respect of two of the affidavits, is a director of both companies.
The first plaintiff employed the defendant, Mr George, as its manager responsible for the promotion of the WGI business so that he was an employee of the first plaintiff but carrying out work for the second plaintiff, in effect. In the course of that employment he was given a car and a laptop and had access to the data for both companies.
He resigned on the 13th of October 2003. It is evident that he has been in dispute about his entitlements, ever since, with the first plaintiff. On the 31st of October, for example, he set out the amounts he claimed as being owed to him. In the email in which he did so, he referred to being in a very unstable bipolar state. It is not known, of course, at this stage, what he meant by that or whether it was meant seriously, but it raises some mild concern, of course.
World Games Leisure PLC is a company seeking to be publicly listed. In the course of floating, Mr Kennedy says, it will obtain a proprietary interest in assets of the second plaintiff. The defendant has sent emails to Mr Steinbruchel, a director of World Games Leisure PLC. The material emailed is an annexure to the affidavit of Mr Kennedy.
On the 2nd of November the defendant emailed to Mr Steinbruchel a long letter which set out, among other things, details of World Games Inc's financial position and details of internal discussions within the first and second plaintiffs about it. The email seems to have annexed to it spreadsheets prepared in that connection and extensive notes, which were headed “Confidential”, summarising the cash flow issues prepared by the defendant.
On the 4th of November, the defendant emailed Mr Coulthart, a solicitor employed by Hopgood Ganim, Lawyers, who act for the plaintiffs. The email objected to a valuation in World Games Leisure PLC's prospectus for the purposes of the float. The complaint of the defendant seems to have been of the inclusion of his name in the prospectus, in connection with the valuation, in a way in which he says implied his involvement in it and his approval of it.
There was, in fact, a reassurance given by Mr Coulthart that the defendant's name would be removed but that does not seem to have changed his approach, judging by subsequent emails. At any rate, what the defendant demanded was, an indemnity or undertakings to remove the valuation by 5.00 p.m. today. If that was not done, he said, he would write to directors of World Games Leisure PLC and he annexed a draft letter which he proposed to send. That letter alleges that the valuation is a sham and provides information as to World Games Inc's databases and financial status. It tells the directors of World Games Leisure PLC that if they do not remove the valuation he will write to United Kingdom Regulators, the London Stock Exchange and the valuation.
Now, the overall affect of the material, in my view, is this: there is no evidence which would justify a conclusion that the defendant will destroy or interfere with the material that he is holding. There is evidence that suggests that he has disclosed and is likely to disclose confidential information which came into his possession as an employee of the first plaintiff, the disclosure of which clearly would be to the detriment of the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff.
I would have concerns about giving an order at the behest of the second plaintiff because it has no assets in the jurisdiction but I accept the interest of the first plaintiff as the employer and the provider of the information and as affected by the result of disclosure.
I might say, on the material, there are two available constructions. One is that Mr George is proposing to operate as a whistle blower with a legitimate concern. The other is that he is, in effect, undertaking a blackmail in the context of the dispute over his entitlements. It is sufficient, I think, to say that there is a serious question here and that the circumstances are such that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim injunction in the terms proposed by the plaintiffs which is only until the close of business effectively on Friday.
The urgency of the matter, I think, justified the application on an ex parte basis given the threat of further disclosure today. Those being my reasons, I'll make the order as per the draft, which I will initial.