Australian Federal Courts (5 November 2026)

Send us Fan Mail Six decisions in the Federal Courts edition for Thursday 5 November 2026, all from the Federal Court of Australia, two with Judicial Ledger headnotes. The opening story: undertakings by a departing executive not to misuse confidential information will not ordinarily answer an interlocutory application to enforce a covenant against working for a competitor, and suppression orders need evidence of necessity, not commercial or personal sensitivity alone. Then redundancy when a services contract changes hands, where losing the head contract was itself the employer's decision that the jobs were no longer required, and the registry. Suppression orders are in force in the restraint case; nothing they protect is reported here. Practice and Procedure Desk (opening story). Telstra Group Limited v Ieraci [2026] FCA 1661 (Snaden J, 29 October 2026) - Signal: Practice and Procedure; Illustrative; JL p. 8. An employer may protect its confidential information and customer connections by a covenant against employment with a competitor that goes no further than reasonably necessary; a strong prima facie case was shown. Undertakings not to misuse information do not answer such a covenant, which exists so the former employee is not left to judge for himself what may properly be used; the risk of innocent misuse and the loss of the bargained-for protection were not remediable in damages; the employer's undertaking as to damages and undertaking to pay remuneration limited the inconvenience, and there was no evidence the new position was at risk. Delay, partly the applicant's own, was relevant but did not displace relief. Under s 37AG(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), commercial sensitivity alone does not ordinarily justify suppression, but suppression is necessary where disclosure would make the litigation a vehicle for competitors to gain advantage or make disclosure the price of litigating; an oral application to suppress personal and financial details failed on bare assertion, the s 37AF question being whether suppression is necessary to avoid an identified prejudice to the administration of justice. Interlocutory injunction granted until 1 January 2027 on the usual undertakings; the employer's confidential information suppressed for five years by consent; the respondent's suppression application refused; costs reserved. JADE Commercial Law Desk . Serco Australia Pty Ltd v United Workers Union [2026] FCA 1648 (Vandongen J, 3 November 2026) - JL p. 5. Under an enterprise agreement whose jobs are defined by a services contract, redundancy occurs when that contract ends and the employer ceases the services, the employer necessarily deciding it no longer requires the jobs though it had no choice; a manager's evidence that he made no decision misunderstood the clause. An employee resigns only by notice under the agreement's termination clause. Mere acceptance of an offer of future employment is not repudiation; commencing other employment is repudiatory only if repugnant to the original contract, and only the employer's acceptance terminates the contract. A dispute about the construction of an enterprise agreement is a matter arising under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) where it determines an immediate liability of real practical importance, but a concession can remove the controversy. Application for declarations dismissed; costs to be heard. JADE Registry (list only, no outcome stated). Majak v Barnden [2026] FCA 1647 (Vandongen J, 3 November 2026) - interlocutory orders. JADE Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC v State of South Australia [2026] FCA 16