Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd v Pamada Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2021] NSWSC 1051

Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd v Pamada Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2021] NSWSC 1051

The unchallenged evidence established a reasonably strong serious question to be tried that the alleged December 2018 contract entitled the plaintiffs to specific performance requiring a licence of the Project intellectual property to UHEP. There was a danger of irreparable harm because sale, transfer, disposal or granting an interest in that intellectual property to a third party could defeat the claim for specific performance, and damages were likely inadequate given the financial evidence. The balance of convenience favoured restraining offers and binding dealings with the intellectual property, but not negotiations, because negotiations alone would not prejudice the plaintiffs if no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Application for Interim Injunction and Ancillary Disclosure Orders / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion Filed on 28 May 2021
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in limited terms; disclosure orders refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
['interim Injunction' 'specific Performance' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'irreparable Harm' 'disclosure Orders' 'licence of Intellectual Property' 'renewable Energy Project Assets']
['equity' 'practice and Procedure' 'contract' 'intellectual Property'] ['interim Injunction' 'specific Performance' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'irreparable Harm' 'disclosure Orders' 'licence of Intellectual Property' 'renewable Energy Project Assets']

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

Equity Commercial List; Application for Interim Injunction and Ancillary Disclosure Orders / Interlocutory Application by Notice of Motion Filed on 28 May 2021

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' claim for specific performance of the alleged December 2018 contract raised a serious question to be tried." 'Whether sale, transfer, disposal or granting of an interest in the intellectual property in respect of the Project would cause irreparable harm for which damages would not be an adequate remedy.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured an interim injunction restraining the second and fifth defendants from dealing with the Project intellectual property.' 'Whether any injunction should restrain negotiations as well as offers, agreements, performance or giving effect to agreements.' 'Whether ancillary disclosure orders should be made requiring identification of persons involved in prior negotiations or offers.']

Ratio Decidendi

The unchallenged evidence established a reasonably strong serious question to be tried that the alleged December 2018 contract entitled the plaintiffs to specific performance requiring a licence of the Project intellectual property to UHEP. There was a danger of irreparable harm because sale, transfer, disposal or granting an interest in that intellectual property to a third party could defeat the claim for specific performance, and damages were likely inadequate given the financial evidence. The balance of convenience favoured restraining offers and binding dealings with the intellectual property, but not negotiations, because negotiations alone would not prejudice the plaintiffs if no...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in limited terms; disclosure orders refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • ['Upon first plaintiff by its counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, the second defendant, by itself, its servants and agents, is restrained from engaging in the Restrained Conduct except with the prior written consent of the plaintiffs, until further order of the Court.' 'Upon first plaintiff by its...