Selected cases

Supreme Court of New South Wales · [2026] NSWSC 574

Concept Cosmetic Medicine v Chater

A NSW Supreme Court clinic dispute about a departing practitioner, a former employee, a nearby business and interim confidentiality and...

Supreme Court of New South Wales25 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Use the linked official source for section-level detail, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Confidential information and restraint disputes need precise contracts, careful evidence and realistic interim orders.
  • A NSW Supreme Court clinic dispute about a departing practitioner, a former employee, a nearby business and interim confidentiality and restraint orders.

Use this to check

  • Confidential information needs to be identified with precision.
  • Restraint clauses should be drafted for the role, location, clients and legitimate interest being protected.
  • Exit processes should require return or deletion of records and devices where appropriate.

Decision snapshot

  1. What happened

    • Concept Cosmetic Medicine operated cosmetic medicine clinics in Bowral, Drummoyne and Newcastle.
    • Dr Nicole Chater practised at the Bowral and Drummoyne clinics under a licence agreement until 19 December 2025.
    • Sally Leonard worked in a part-time clerical support role under an employment agreement and resigned on the same date.
    • Mind Body Skin Institute Pty Ltd, a company controlled by Dr Chater and Andrew Chater, had been incorporated in March 2025 and from January 2026 offered general practice, women's health, mental health, metabolic health, skin, cosmetic medicine and laser services from premises about 750 metres from Concept's Bowral clinic.

  2. What the court had to decide

    • The Supreme Court had to decide whether to grant interim injunctions before final trial, including orders restraining alleged misuse of confidential information, treatment or solicitation of Concept clients, destruction or alteration of records, and conduct said to breach a licence agreement and an employment agreement.

  3. What the court decided

    • The Court dealt with the interim injunction application and made orders at paragraph 111 of the judgment.
    • The decision is important for businesses because it shows how the Court tests urgent restraint and confidentiality relief by reference to serious questions to be tried, the contractual terms, the evidence and the balance of convenience, rather than accepting every requested restriction just because a competitor has opened nearby.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Confidential information and restraint disputes need precise contracts, careful evidence and realistic interim orders.
  • A business that wants urgent protection should identify the actual information, the actual contractual promise and the practical harm, not just point to a competitor opening nearby.

Useful next steps

  • Confidential information needs to be identified with precision.
  • Restraint clauses should be drafted for the role, location, clients and legitimate interest being protected.
  • Exit processes should require return or deletion of records and devices where appropriate.
  • Urgent injunctions need evidence of harm and a realistic balance of convenience.
  • Businesses should separate record preservation orders from broader non-compete or non-solicit claims.

Practical read

This is a classic business breakup story: a practitioner leaves, a support employee leaves on the same day, a new nearby clinic opens, and the former business asks the Court for urgent injunctions. The case is useful because it shows the difference between genuine urgent protection and overreaching restraint language.

The Court had to deal with several different strands at once. There were licence terms, employment terms, allegations about confidential patient and business information, records preservation, solicitation and whether interim restraints should run until December 2026. In that setting, vague concern is not enough. The business seeking orders needs to show a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience supports the exact interim restrictions sought.

For small businesses, the practical lesson is to build the protection before the breakup. Practitioner agreements, employment contracts and confidentiality processes should clearly identify what information is protected, what happens on exit, who may contact clients, how records are returned and what restraint is proportionate. Once the dispute is urgent, the Court will test the wording, evidence and commercial reality.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Define confidential information in practical categories, not just broad labels.
  • Set clear exit steps for devices, records, patient or client lists and system access.
  • Draft restraints separately for employees, contractors, licensees and founders.
  • Collect evidence of solicitation or misuse before seeking urgent orders.
  • Keep interim injunction requests targeted to the harm you can prove.

Key takeaways

  • Confidential information needs to be identified with precision.
  • Restraint clauses should be drafted for the role, location, clients and legitimate interest being protected.
  • Exit processes should require return or deletion of records and devices where appropriate.
  • Urgent injunctions need evidence of harm and a realistic balance of convenience.
  • Businesses should separate record preservation orders from broader non-compete or non-solicit claims.

Related topics

Contracts & CommercialEmployment & WorkplaceIP & Brand ProtectionPrivacy & Data

How Sprintlaw can help

Contract ReviewEmployment ContractContractor Agreement