Hume Computers Pty Ltd ACN 003 154 827 v Exact International BV [2006] FCA 1439

Hume Computers Pty Ltd ACN 003 154 827 v Exact International BV [2006] FCA 1439

The Court held that there was a serious question to be tried that Exact, and through it ESA, breached an implied obligation of good faith by keeping the Distributorship Agreement on foot and requiring Hume to locate and service customers while asserting a right to entice those customers away, and also a serious question about misuse of customer information supplied through the portal for a limited purpose. The balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief because ESA's proposed approach would substantially erode the value of Hume's business, including the value relevant to compensation payable on termination, while the Distributorship Agreement remained on foot.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application Before Final Determination of Proceedings
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctive relief granted against the Second and Fourth Respondents; costs ordered against the Second and Fourth Respondents for 13 October 2006; respondents' stay motion listed for hearing.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'implied Obligation of Good Faith' 'breach of Confidence' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'exclusive Jurisdiction Clause']

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

Practice and Procedure; Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application Before Final Determination of Proceedings

  1. 1 ['Whether ESA and Mr Urand should be restrained pending final determination from approaching, soliciting or enticing away customers of the applicants while the Distributorship Agreement remains on foot.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that Exact and ESA breached an implied obligation of good faith to cooperate in achieving the contractual objects of the Distributorship Agreement.' "Whether there was a serious question to be tried that customer information supplied through the portal was provided for a limited purpose and was misused by ESA to target Hume's customers." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that there was a serious question to be tried that Exact, and through it ESA, breached an implied obligation of good faith by keeping the Distributorship Agreement on foot and requiring Hume to locate and service customers while asserting a right to entice those customers away, and also a serious question about misuse of customer information supplied through the portal for a limited purpose. The balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief because ESA's proposed approach would substantially erode the value of Hume's business, including the value relevant to compensation payable on termination, while the Distributorship Agreement remained on foot.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctive relief granted against the Second and Fourth Respondents; costs ordered against the Second and Fourth Respondents for 13 October 2006; respondents' stay motion listed for hearing.

Orders

  • ['Upon the Applicants by their counsel giving the usual undertaking as to damages, until final determination of these proceedings, or until further order of the Court, each of the Second and Fourth Respondents by themselves, their servants, agents, and associated entities controlled by them within the meaning of...