He swore his accounts held 59,000 emails. He disclosed 18. The court wasn't satisfied
A research charity's court ruling shows why tight confidentiality deeds and fast forensic work matter when a senior employee walks out the door.
On July 8, 2026, the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered a former business development manager to hand over more documents to his old employer, in a dispute over whether he took confidential information to start a rival venture.
The employer, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, is a public company and registered charity. It employs about 500 staff and, on its own evidence, runs Australia's largest neuroscience research team. The former manager had also run one of the institute's commercial spin-out companies as chief executive.
According to the institute, the manager downloaded roughly 4,800 documents on October 21 and 24, 2025 - weeks before he resigned on November 25. The institute alleges he used its confidential information as a "springboard" to build a US-incorporated startup, a case the court called arguable but did not test. The manager says he downloaded the files only to do his job while travelling, and denies misusing anything.
The institute acted quickly. It filed suit on December 2, 2025, obtained an injunction, and secured orders that month requiring the manager to deliver up his devices and disclose relevant documents. It then challenged the result: he had produced only 18 emails, despite sworn evidence that his personal and consulting accounts held 59,151 emails between them.
The court found the institute had established reasonable grounds to believe he still held relevant documents and had not complied with the disclosure order. It also accepted the institute's reading of that earlier order - that it reached documents about business opportunities allegedly diverted to the new company. The court ordered the manager to file a sworn disclosure affidavit and allowed a court-appointed forensic expert to run further searches.
The manager did secure some limits. The court capped the expert's keyword searches at two terms and rejected the institute's broader list as too wide. It also agreed he could review the flagged documents and claim privilege before the institute sees them.
For HR leaders, the case is a reminder of how much weight sits on the documents signed at hire. The manager had entered an intellectual property and confidentiality deed in 2023, and that deed helped frame the obligations at the heart of the dispute. Current, well-drafted confidentiality and IP terms are what an employer leans on when a key person leaves and questions follow.
The ruling also rewards speed and a careful paper trail. The institute pointed to emails - cited in the judgment and attributed to a senior researcher who is not a party to the case - that referred to running in "stealth mode." The manager disputes the institute's characterisation, and the point will be resolved at trial.
One note for readers: this was an interlocutory ruling on discovery, not a decision on the merits. The court made no findings that the former manager misused confidential information or breached his obligations. Those questions are still to be decided.
