What happened next landed the parties in Federal Court. Pennytel alleged that Engelke, Chitas, and their business associate Peter Horan had entered into an agreement by no later than September or October 2022 to establish a competing telecommunications business using confidential information. The company pointed to what it considered suspicious evidence: a customer spreadsheet Engelke emailed to Chitas on 31 March 2022, database reports he generated in April 2022 containing client information including some driver licence numbers and credit histories, and the customer report Chitas forwarded to her personal email account on 22 April 2022.
When both employees left, Pennytel claimed they deleted files from their laptops. The company grew more concerned when former Pennytel customers began appearing at SPN Co Pty Ltd, the new venture where both former employees eventually worked.
Pennytel's legal team built their case around alleged breaches of employment contracts, violations of the Corporations Act, and misuse of confidential information. They sought damages, restraining orders, and delivery of company records.
Justice Needham found against Pennytel on every claim. The court determined the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants took or misused confidential information. The alleged scheme was not established. No employment contract breaches occurred. The Corporations Act violations were unfounded.
For HR professionals, the most instructive finding concerned Chitas's...
The lawyer representing former Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore alleged in court filings that accusations against Moore were part of a “litigation strategy designed to villainize Mr. Moore” ...