Kingfisher Mobile Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1600

Kingfisher Mobile Australia Pty Ltd v Telstra Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1600

The Court did not finally determine whether to order the separate question. Delay was relevant but not decisive, and overlapping accounting evidence was not itself a reason to refuse the course proposed by Kingfisher. The most important matter was that Telstra could not yet say whether it could meet a March hearing date until Kingfisher served all evidence on which it relied for the Tail Customers Case, other than damages but including evidence as to why damages would not be an adequate remedy. The Court therefore directed Kingfisher to serve that evidence, provisionally fixed the Tail Customers Case for hearing on 18 to 21 March 2024, and listed the matter for further directions to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings in Equity Commercial List / Notice of Motion for Determination of Separate Question Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 28.2 and Provisional Hearing Date
Outcome
Consideration of whether a separate question should be ordered was deferred; the plaintiff was directed to serve evidence; the Tail Customers Case was provisionally fixed for hearing; and the matter was listed for further directions.
Legal Topics
['determination of Separate Question' 'declaratory Relief' 'final Injunctive Relief' 'breach of Contract' 'damages' 'adequacy of Damages as a Remedy']
['civil Procedure' 'contract Law' 'equity'] ['determination of Separate Question' 'declaratory Relief' 'final Injunctive Relief' 'breach of Contract' 'damages' 'adequacy of Damages as a Remedy']

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

Civil Proceedings in Equity Commercial List / Notice of Motion for Determination of Separate Question Under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) R 28.2 and Provisional Hearing Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the question of Kingfisher's entitlement to declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the Tail Customers Case should be determined separately from and before the Lost Opportunity Case and before any assessment of damages." 'Whether the proposed separate question should be listed for hearing in March 2024 so that Kingfisher could move for final injunctive relief before Assurant commenced providing services to Telstra.' "Whether delay, overlapping evidence on damages and Telstra's ability to be ready justified refusing or deferring the proposed separate hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court did not finally determine whether to order the separate question. Delay was relevant but not decisive, and overlapping accounting evidence was not itself a reason to refuse the course proposed by Kingfisher. The most important matter was that Telstra could not yet say whether it could meet a March hearing date until Kingfisher served all evidence on which it relied for the Tail Customers Case, other than damages but including evidence as to why damages would not be an adequate remedy. The Court therefore directed Kingfisher to serve that evidence, provisionally fixed the Tail Customers Case for hearing on 18 to 21 March 2024, and listed the matter for further directions to...

Court Disposition

Consideration of whether a separate question should be ordered was deferred; the plaintiff was directed to serve evidence; the Tail Customers Case was provisionally fixed for hearing; and the matter was listed for further directions.

Orders

  • ['By 5 pm on 22 January 2024 the plaintiff serve all evidence on which it proposes to rely in relation to the relief sought in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Summons, other than as to damages, but including as to why damages would not be an adequate remedy were the plaintiff to be granted the relief sought in paragraph 2...