Shaw and Partners denied access to Fortrend Securities valuations, emails with clients

Brokers Christopher Wollermann and Stephen Lyle won’t be allowed to access years old valuations of the company they walked out on, or correspondence with clients they allegedly poached.

Shaw and Partners senior portfolio managers Stephen Lyle and Christopher Wollermann.

A Federal Court registrar has rejected legal requests from two Shaw and Partners brokers to have their former employer turn over valuations of the company conducted since 2017 and communications exchanged with clients they allegedly poached before walking out in December.

Fortrend Securities boss Joe Forster launched legal action against brokers Christopher Wollermann and Stephen Lyle after he accused them of taking 64 of the firm’s clients, up from the initial 46 lodged in filings.

He claimed that as the brokers prepared to leave they ­accessed confidential information relating to some of those clients.

During a hearing on Thursday, Federal Court Registrar Alison Legge said she would not order discovery of valuations of the business conducted from February 2017 to be released to the respondents, Mr Wollermann and Mr Lyle.

Their barrister Luke Merrick SC told the court this ­information should be released because they are entitled to test expert valuations provided on the company, as at least one component of Fortrend’s case is likely to focus on how much business they lost as a result of Mr Wollermann’s and Mr Lyle’s departure.

“It might well be that I can test the evidence of the expert by reference to other documents, the books and accounts company,” he said.

“(But) I don’t know because I haven’t seen it yet.”

Barrister for Fortrend Tim North KC argued the request was “nonsensical” and the date range was too broad, as Mr Wollermann and Mr Lyle commenced exit arrangements in September and left Fortrend in December last year.

“In so far as the solicited clients are concerned, as of the date of the pleading there were 46 clients that had transferred from FSA to Shaw, affidavit material current suggests that figure is 64 active accounts that were transferred,” he told the court.

As well, Registrar Legge denied Mr Merrick’s request for copies of communications – for example, emails – between Mr Forster or Fortrend and the clients that departed his business.

Mr Merrick argued that because Mr Forster’s firm continued to make contact with those clients after they left, he should have access to them to “assess what if any steps FSA … took to try to prevent business going out the door”.

“What the nature of Mr Forster’s … communication (with) these customers were and whether that might be the reason why they left (is relevant).

“It’s a causation issue,” he said.

But Mr North said the request related to communications involving Shaw and Partner’s current clients, and therefore they should ask them for the correspondence.

The case is listed for a trial, set to kick off on March 18 next year.