Jarrad Goulding
Jarrad Goulding

From The Local Guys Services & Adelaide Test And Tag Professionals

Things you need to know about Jarrad Goulding

A BRIEF OF THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS LEADING
TO AN COURT CASE AGAINST

JARRAD GOULDING

TESTCORP PTY LTD/TESTCORP

SERVICECORP PTY LTD/SERVICECORP

  • Jarrad Goulding was employed by the company from 10/3/2012 until 7/8/2012 as a client manager.
  • At that time the company's primary services included test and tag, emergency point testing, microwave testing, RCD testing and thermal imaging and some electrical repair work.
  • Jarrad Goulding's primary tasks involved maintaining existing client contracts, upselling those contracts and approaching and winning new clients.
  • He was a junior.
  • Jarrad Goulding had no industry experience, he knew nothing of the test and tag business, he knew nothing of developing relationships in the associated B2B industry and knew nothing of franchising.
  • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraph [52]-[56] and [79] of [2022] SADC 156, judgment.]
Employee working
Business handshake
  • Jarrad Goulding was trained by company's team members in each aspect of his role and he was provided unfettered access to all such relevant files, data and supporting information as was the case for all client managers.
  • Within days of being employed by Employer, Jarrad Goulding began the setup of a competitor company called TestCorp. He did so relying on his good friend Luke Stephen who was unknown to the company. Jarrad Goulding structured the relationship such that Luke was the face of TestCorp enabling Jarrad to remain invisible. TestCorp was incorporated on 14 May 2012.
  • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraph [73] of the judgment.]

On 2 April 2012

Jarrad registered the domain name
"testcorp.com.au" in his own name.

On 3 May 2012

Jarrad made it public knowledge that he owned the brand Testcorp.

On 3 May 2012

Jarrad paid for his identity as the owner of the domain "testcorp" to be hidden on the internet domain information service "WHOIS".

[The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraph [77] of the judgment.]

At all times Jarrad presented himself as a diligent and loyal member of the company's team.

[The statement above appears in or is supported by paragraph [206] of the judgment.]

  • Client information was readily available to Jarrad Goulding whilst employed. He accessed the company database and recorded details of clients and their contracts on Post-it Notes ("Client Data").
  • Client Data available from the database included details such as decision makers, contract details, site numbers, site addresses, phone numbers, emails, quantities of equipment, charge rates and most importantly dates when sites fall due for their servicing.
  • A range of client specific information was recorded on the 239 Post-it Notes that were presented to court. A number of the Post-it Notes had errors in either names or phone numbers or similar. These same errors existing in the company's database from which the information was copied.
  • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraphs [245], [259], [316], [322] and [515]-[517] of the judgment.]
  • Post-it Notes in Jarrad Goulding’s handwriting that were presented to court contained details of a range of clients: - Adelaide Brighton Cement
    - Royal Adeaide Hospital
    - Adelaide Zoo
    - Adelaide University
    - Australian Submarine Corporation
    - University of South Australia and so on
Post-it notes

THE TRUE EXTENT OF THE NUMBER OF POST-IT NOTES WITH DETAILS OF EMPLOYER'S CLIENTS IS UNKNOWN.

Person typing on keyboard
  • Whilst employed, Jarrad collected and recorded company's secrets. He copied various procedures and forms and records that took years to develop and refine ("The System"). The extent of Jarrad's collection of company's secrets is unknown.
  • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraphs [217] and [265] of the judgment.]
  • Knowledge of the Client Data and the System allowed quotes and proposals to be sent to clients just as their next service was due. How very convenient, particularly when the quote was at a reduced cost.
  • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraph [338] and [367] of the judgment.]

The company commenced servicing UnitingCare Wesley in 2004. With October 2012 being the next service period for the 42 sites Jarrad quoted Uniting Care Wesley on 6 August 2012, the second to last day of his employment.

TestCorp invoiced UnitingCare Wesley $27,871.60 (excluding GST) in its first year.

[The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraph [460] of the judgment.]

By 31.10.2012 TestCorp was registered with The Government of Western Australia Department of Finance as a supplier and commenced servicing various Western Australian sites for the Department of Finance in November 2012.

The number of cases similar to UnitingCare Wesley or The Government of Western Australia Department of Finance is unknown.

  • Whilst employed and for some years afterwards Jarrad through TestCorp used Client Data and the the System to grow the TestCorp business.

    • [The statement above appears in or is supported by paragraph [448] of the judgment.]

  • In December 2012 Jarrad became a director and equal shareholder with Luke in August 2013.

    • [The statement above appears in or is supported by paragraph [76] of the judgment.]

  • On 19 March 2015 after less that 3 years in business, Jarrad sold his 50% share of TestCorp to his business partner Luke for the sum of $243,496. Luke was trusting of the transction and also of the non-solicitation restraint agreed by Jarrad.

    • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraph [107] and [108] of the judgment.]

Person holding 'LIE' sign
Frustrated man
  • Jarrad immediately established a competitor electrical test and tag business called ServiceCorp. It was set up specifically as a competitor company to TestCorp and his unsuspecting ex business partner Luke. ServiceCorp as a business was established in March 2015.

    • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraphs [73]-[75] (based on Jarrad’s admissions in the proceedings) and [217] and the adverse credit findings made at [214] of the judgment.]

  • Jarrad continued to use Client Data and the System in ServiceCorp and converted TestCorp clients into ServiceCorp clients.

    • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraphs [36], [354], [449], [454], [470] [217] and [265] of the judgment.]

  • The TestCorp business was evaporating as TestCorp clients were being converted to ServiceCorp. TestCorp ceased to operate soon after.

    • [While the statement above does not find any direct support from any specific finding in the judgment, it is a conclusion or deduction that might reasonably be inferred from the judgment, as a whole.]

  • Using the Client Data and the System, Jarrad possessed qualified clients, the knowhow and the service standards required to win contracts and to maintain contracts. Jarrad had at hand, 'a ready made-business,' a turn-key operation.
  • Jarrad approached Company clients and coverted them into TestCorp clients and then converted TestCorp clients into ServiceCorp clients.
  • [The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraphs [22], [30], [36]-[37], [448], [455], [469], [473], [476], [489] (including the “head-start” enjoyed by Jarrad) as well as the conclusions reached at [446]-[449] and [456] of the judgment.]
Masked person with laptop

Jarrad Goulding freely took company secrets from his employer, rebranded those secrets, firstly with a TestCorp logo and then a ServiceCorp logo.

[The statements above appear in or are supported by paragraphs [1], [5] and [153] (allegations upon which the claim is based) and [66], [69], [285] and regarding the TestCorp quotes [338]-[367] and [433] of the judgment.]

Gavel

Judgement was enterred in December 2022.

The company won in the 2 areas of judgement, liability and damages.

The court case exposed Jarrad Goulding, his behaviour, his conduct and his strategy.

Jarrad's employer was successful in its claim against him and won the court case.

Jarrad Goulding lost the court case.

Judge ruled evidence from Jarrad Goulding was unsatisfactory because he was untruthful.

[The statements above are conclusions to be drawn directly or by inference from the judgment and/or are statements that appear in the judgment (linked below) or are supported by paragraphs [208]-[214] where the judgment includes serious adverse credit findings made against Jarrad, namely because the trial judge “found his evidence untruthful in all the circumstances”, references him ‘lying in his CV’ and, when questioned by the judge, telling the judge “Doesn’t everyone lie in CVs?”. The trial judge found Jarrad’s evidence in that respect “discreditable”.]

Download the Full Judgement
Friendly reminder: In accordance with Part 2 of the Australian Franchise Code of Conduct, disclosure documents for franchisees must include detailed and properly documented information regarding any litigation involving the franchisor or related parties. Please ensure that your disclosure documents are compliant and accurately reflect these requirements.
About Jarrad Goulding Truth

Judgement was entered in December 2022.

Jarrad's employer won in the 2 areas of judgement, liability and damages.

[The statements above reflect the judgment, the orders made and reasons for the orders against Jarrad]