Background
Alan Gerard Kavanagh brought proceedings alleging that Atlassian Pty Ltd and two of its employees had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). At an urgent hearing on 18 September 2026, Atlassian gave oral undertakings concerning proposed workplace orders, and the Court temporarily restrained other conduct. Interim confidentiality and non-publication orders were subsequently made over filed materials.
Kavanagh sought to prevent termination and performance management, require workplace accommodations associated with his ADHD, and avoid one-on-one meetings with his supervisor unless an employee-relations representative attended. Atlassian sought release from its earlier undertakings and final confidentiality orders covering entire documents until 14 days after any mediation ended. The proceeding was still at an early stage, had not been allocated to a docket judge, and had not been referred to mediation.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Stellios refused to continue the injunctions and released Atlassian from its earlier oral undertakings. The evidence disclosed no real threat of termination, performance concerns had arisen before Kavanagh’s letter of demand, and any financial effects of his performance rating could be compensated by damages. The evidence also did not establish sufficiently definite agreed accommodations or a medical and pleaded basis for prohibiting unaccompanied meetings with his supervisor.
The Court nevertheless noted Atlassian’s fresh undertaking to give one month’s notice before implementing any decision to terminate or discipline Kavanagh and to continue managing his employment through its standard processes. Kavanagh was given liberty to seek a restraint against termination on 48 hours’ notice.
The Court held that Atlassian’s application for final confidentiality and non-publication orders was premature because no mediation had been ordered and the request covered entire documents without adequate particularisation. It adjourned that application to the future docket judge but extended the existing interim confidentiality and non-publication orders until further order, preserving confidentiality while case management and possible mediation were considered.
Key Takeaways
- An interlocutory workplace injunction requires a prima facie case and a balance of convenience favoring relief; apprehension of termination is insufficient without evidence of a real threat.
- Courts may decline to impose workplace accommodations or meeting protocols when the alleged agreement is provisional or imprecise and the medical, evidentiary, or pleaded foundation is inadequate.
- Suppression and non-publication orders must be necessary and appropriately particularised; requests covering entire documents may be premature even when confidentiality could assist future settlement.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary burden on employees seeking urgent orders that would restrict an employer’s performance-management process. A diagnosed condition and asserted lived experience did not, without supporting medical evidence and a clear connection to the pleaded claims, justify detailed judicial supervision of workplace arrangements.
It also shows how the Court may preserve confidentiality temporarily without deciding that broad final suppression orders are warranted. Parties seeking confidentiality to support mediation should identify the specific information requiring protection and connect the requested duration to a concrete case-management timetable.