Monster Energy AU Pty Ltd v Whincup [2013] NSWSC 87

There is a real possibility that granting the injunction would lead to Mr Whincup being sidelined from upcoming races, causing serious consequences for him and the associated parties. On balance, this justifies refusal of the interlocutory injunction, notwithstanding a serious question to be tried.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 February 2013
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction Prior to Final Hearing
Outcome: Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs
Legal Topics: ['injunctions' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'breach of Contract' 'estoppel' 'sponsorship Agreements']

['remedies' 'equity' 'commercial Law'] ['injunctions' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'breach of Contract' 'estoppel' 'sponsorship Agreements']

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

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction Prior to Final Hearing

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether the Promotion/Endorsement Agreement between Monster Energy and Mr Whincup has been frustrated by Triple Eight's appointment of Red Bull as sponsor" 'Whether Monster Energy is estopped from enforcing the Promotion/Endorsement Agreement due to representations allegedly made to Mr Whincup' 'Whether Red Bull and/or Triple Eight induced Mr Whincup to breach his contract with Monster Energy']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed with costs

Orders

["The plaintiff's amended notice of motion of 1 February 2013 is dismissed with costs."]