The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 3) [2006] FCA 686

The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 3) [2006] FCA 686

The Court granted interlocutory relief because the materials disclosed a serious question to be tried that requisite knowledge could be attributed to CRI through Dr Gray and Dr Chen, and the balance of convenience favoured the University since CRI would suffer no substantial loss from being restrained while transfer of the shares could cause the University to lose any equity and there was no reasonable possibility of an effective damages remedy against CRI.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Proceedings Concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Fiduciary Duties and Shares / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctive relief granted.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'restraint on Disposition of Shares' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'attribution of Knowledge' 'equitable Interest in Shares' 'balance of Convenience']
['practice and Procedure' 'equity' 'intellectual Property' 'employment' 'associations'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'restraint on Disposition of Shares' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'attribution of Knowledge' 'equitable Interest in Shares' '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 for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Proceedings Concerning Intellectual Property Rights, Fiduciary Duties and Shares / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried that CRI had knowledge attributable to it of the University's interest in the DOX-Spheres Invention or of breaches of fiduciary duty by Dr Gray and Dr Chen." 'Whether the shares and options held by CRI in Sirtex were potentially impressed with an equity in favour of the University.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining CRI from dealing with its Sirtex shares or exercising options pending determination of the proceedings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted interlocutory relief because the materials disclosed a serious question to be tried that requisite knowledge could be attributed to CRI through Dr Gray and Dr Chen, and the balance of convenience favoured the University since CRI would suffer no substantial loss from being restrained while transfer of the shares could cause the University to lose any equity and there was no reasonable possibility of an effective damages remedy against CRI.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctive relief granted.

Orders

  • ['Upon the applicant giving the undertaking as to compensation, the Third Respondent be restrained, until further order, from dealing, whether by transfer, alienation, encumbrance or otherwise, in any shares held by it, whether beneficially or otherwise, in the Second Respondent, other than for the purpose of...