Gough & Gilmour Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors v Caterpillar of Australia Ltd & Ors (No 14) [2003] NSWIRComm 44

Gough & Gilmour Holdings Pty Ltd and Ors v Caterpillar of Australia Ltd & Ors (No 14) [2003] NSWIRComm 44

Because the issue of alternative relief had not been finally determined and there was a real prospect that relief might be granted in a form other than compensation, including relief affecting the respondents' ability to terminate the dealership agreements on 90 days' notice, dissolving or replacing the injunction would be premature. The balance of convenience favoured leaving the orders of 24 October 2001 in place until final determination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment Concerning Whether Injunctive Orders Made on 24 October 2001 Should Be Dissolved or Remain in Place Pending Determination of Alternative Relief
Outcome
Injunctive orders to remain in place until final determination of the matter; respondents' attempt to have the orders dissolved or replaced was not accepted.
Legal Topics
['application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'dealership Agreements' 'alternative Relief' 'notice of Termination' 'balance of Convenience']
['industrial Relations' 'unfair Contracts' 'injunctions'] ['application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'dealership Agreements' 'alternative Relief' 'notice of Termination' 'balance of Convenience']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment Concerning Whether Injunctive Orders Made on 24 October 2001 Should Be Dissolved or Remain in Place Pending Determination of Alternative Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the injunctive orders made on 24 October 2001 should be dissolved after the Court refused the applicants' primary relief." "Whether the injunction should remain in place because the applicants' alternative relief had not yet been determined and might include relief other than compensation." 'Whether the terms of the injunction should be revised in the absence of agreement between the parties.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the issue of alternative relief had not been finally determined and there was a real prospect that relief might be granted in a form other than compensation, including relief affecting the respondents' ability to terminate the dealership agreements on 90 days' notice, dissolving or replacing the injunction would be premature. The balance of convenience favoured leaving the orders of 24 October 2001 in place until final determination.

Court Disposition

Injunctive orders to remain in place until final determination of the matter; respondents' attempt to have the orders dissolved or replaced was not accepted.

Orders

  • ['The orders made on 24 October 2001 restraining the respondents remain in place until final determination in the matter.' 'The outstanding issue of alternative relief was to be dealt with in proceedings scheduled for 25, 27 and 28 March 2003.']