Background
Macsteel International Australia Pty Limited, a steel trader, employed Cornelius Hermanus Oliver from 2018 until December 2025. Oliver became its chief financial officer in January 2022. Macsteel alleged that, between June and November 2025, approximately 9,784 unique documents were downloaded from its online systems to Oliver’s personal laptop. The documents allegedly included commercially sensitive financial, strategic, customer, supplier, contractual, operational and employee information.
Macsteel discovered the downloads after an IT investigation prompted by the resignation of eight of its 15 steel traders between May and June 2026. Some former employees had joined or received offers from Peter Cremer Australia Pty Ltd. Macsteel also identified unexplained contacts between Oliver and senior Cremer employees while Oliver remained employed. Oliver denied knowingly downloading documents to the alleged extent, said his personal laptop had been erased and sold before the allegations arose, and stated that the devices then in his possession belonged to his current employer. Although he initially opposed Macsteel’s application, at the hearing he did not oppose the requested relief but sought to confine inspection to his employer-issued laptop and mobile phone.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Neskovcin granted the interlocutory injunction, finding that Macsteel had established a prima facie case concerning the use or disclosure of its confidential information and that the balance of convenience and interests of justice favoured restraint. The extraordinary volume of downloads, Oliver’s failure to return the downloaded information, his unexplained contacts with Cremer personnel, and the subsequent departure of Macsteel traders provided a reasonable basis to infer a risk of use or disclosure. The Court did not finally determine that misuse had occurred.
The Court also ordered Oliver to make available to the applicant’s computer expert any electronic devices within his possession, power, custody or control for forensic preservation and copying. He was required to facilitate access to all cloud-storage facilities under his control, expressly including two identified email accounts. Targeted searches, a process for asserting privilege, discovery of documents concerning the confidential information, and an affidavit identifying any use or disclosure were also ordered. The Court found that these measures could preserve evidence, narrow the disputed issues and clarify the extent of any misuse while limiting access through targeted search parameters and a short device-retention period.
Key Takeaways
- A prima facie case and a favourable balance of convenience supported an interlocutory restraint against using or disclosing the employer’s confidential information.
- The forensic inspection extended to any electronic devices and cloud-storage facilities within Oliver’s possession, power, custody or control, not merely the two employer-issued devices or the two expressly identified accounts.
- The orders combined evidence preservation, targeted forensic searches, privilege protections, discovery and sworn disclosure without finally deciding whether confidential information had been misused.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Federal Court’s willingness to order broad but structured preservation and inspection measures where evidence suggests that a former senior employee retained a large volume of confidential business material and there is a plausible risk of misuse.
It also shows how targeted search protocols, prompt return of devices and a privilege-objection process can protect the respondent’s interests while enabling an applicant to preserve electronic evidence and investigate possible past disclosure.