EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 528

Yura Yarta Services v Jones

A Federal Court business-exit dispute about former directors and employees, labour-hire competition, restraints and confidential information.

Federal Court of Australia30 Apr 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Restraint and confidentiality cases are won or lost on precision.
  • A Federal Court business-exit dispute about former directors and employees, labour-hire competition, restraints and confidential information.

Use this to check

  • Restraints should identify role, area, period, customers and protected interest.
  • Confidential information claims need specific categories of information.
  • Urgent injunctions can fail even where there is a serious issue to be tried.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Yura Yarta Services was an Indigenous workforce services business providing labour hire, recruitment and workforce solutions.
    • Tasmea, an ASX-listed business group, owned 49 percent of Yura Yarta.
    • Allan Jones had been a director and also controlled RAW Group and RAW Personnel.
    • Thomas Goodes and Laurie Gibson were directors and employees of Yura Yarta, and Tanisha Morrison was an employee.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether the applicants had shown a serious question to be tried and a balance of convenience justifying urgent injunctions against former directors and employees based on director duties, shareholder and employment restraints, employee and customer solicitation, competition and alleged confidential information risks.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court discharged interim undertakings and dismissed the interlocutory injunction application.
    • It accepted there may be serious questions to be tried on some issues, but held that the balance of convenience did not favour the broad urgent orders sought.
    • The confidential information claim was also too speculative for the requested relief.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Restraint and confidentiality cases are won or lost on precision.
  • A business seeking urgent orders should identify the exact contract, the exact confidential information, the exact customers or workers at risk and the harm the order will actually prevent.

Useful next steps

  • Restraints should identify role, area, period, customers and protected interest.
  • Confidential information claims need specific categories of information.
  • Urgent injunctions can fail even where there is a serious issue to be tried.
  • Courts may resist orders that effectively decide the case before trial.
  • Exit records should capture devices, access, client contacts and employee communications.

Practical read

This case has the full business-breakup story: shareholders, former directors, employees leaving around the same time, a competing labour-hire business and urgent attempts to stop people working for the new business. The applicants were worried about competition, confidential information, client and employee relationships and the effect of director resignations on Supply Nation certification.

The Court was prepared to assume there were serious issues to be tried on some claims. But that did not mean the urgent injunctions should be granted. The requested orders were broad. Some did not identify the employees, customers or confidential information with enough precision. Some risked giving final-style restraint relief before trial. There was also no evidence of actual misuse of confidential information or actual solicitation of labour-hire employees or customers.

For small businesses, the lesson is to draft and operate restraints before the exit happens. If you want urgent protection later, the Court needs more than suspicion and broad contract language. It needs targeted evidence showing the specific promise, the specific risk and why the order will prevent real harm without unfairly shutting down ordinary work.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Draft restraints around the actual role, market and legitimate business interest.
  • Define confidential information in usable categories.
  • Run a documented exit process for devices, access and records.
  • Collect evidence before alleging solicitation or misuse.
  • Keep urgent injunction requests narrower than the final relief sought.

Key takeaways

  • Restraints should identify role, area, period, customers and protected interest.
  • Confidential information claims need specific categories of information.
  • Urgent injunctions can fail even where there is a serious issue to be tried.
  • Courts may resist orders that effectively decide the case before trial.
  • Exit records should capture devices, access, client contacts and employee communications.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help