Loyal clients began rebooking with a former consultant — the employer went to court to stop it
A federal court has restrained a former cruise consultant from contacting his ex-employer's clients — and the ruling turns on what counts as confidential information.
The decision, handed down on 10 April 2026, centres on a dispute between Silversea Cruises Australia Pty Ltd and its former private cruise consultant, Matthew Kensett, whose employment was terminated before he took up a role with a rival sales channel. What followed was a textbook example of the kind of post-employment fallout that keeps HR teams up at night.
Kensett had worked for Silversea since December 2016, selling luxury cruise holidays directly to consumers. In August 2025, his employment was terminated. By October 2025, he had joined Savenio Pty Ltd — a Host Agency that also sells Silversea cruises — and began servicing clients he had previously looked after at Silversea.
The trouble started when Silversea noticed that loyal repeat customers were cancelling their direct bookings and rebooking through Kensett at Savenio. Kensett admitted reaching out to a number of those clients to let them know he had changed roles and was available to help. In Silversea's view, that amounted to a breach of the confidentiality and non-solicitation clauses in his November 2024 employment contract.
Kensett saw things differently. He had actually initiated the legal proceedings himself, filing a claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging he was dismissed for exercising a workplace right. Silversea hit back with a cross-claim and sought interim orders to stop Kensett from continuing to contact its clients.
At the heart of the case — Kensett v Silversea Cruises Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 572 — was a question HR professionals will recognise: do client contact details stored on an employee's personal phone, voluntarily shared by clients, or simply committed to memory belong to the employer?
Judge Zipser, sitting in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, found that they do — at least on a preliminary basis. The court accepted that such details fell within the definition of confidential information under the employment contract, drawing on established case law that client information obtained during employment can carry obligations of confidence regardless of where it is stored.
The court also found that Kensett's outreach to former clients — even framed as a friendly heads-up about his new role — was enough to constitute solicitation under the contract. And even where clients had contacted him first, the court noted that the restraint still applied.
Silversea claimed losses of USD 108,266.20 from clients shifting their bookings to the trade channel.
The restraining orders prevent Kensett from soliciting former clients until 7 August 2026 and from using Silversea's confidential information until further order of the court. He was, however, permitted to continue servicing bookings already made through Savenio.
The decision is not final. The underlying claims — including Kensett's adverse action complaint and Silversea's cross-claim for damages — are still to be heard. But for employers navigating the grey zone between personal relationships and company assets, this interim ruling sends a clear message: a well-drafted restraint clause, when tested, can hold.
