EG FuelCo (Australia) Ltd v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 989

EG FuelCo (Australia) Ltd v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 989

Although EG accepted there was a serious question to be tried about Ampol's entitlement under cl 8.1 of the Trade Mark Licence Deed, the balance of convenience did not favour the interlocutory mandatory injunction. The relief would compel EG to embark on a fresh course of conduct, materially alter the status quo, and in practical terms give Ampol the final relief sought. The hardship and damages issues were evenly balanced, but the proposed orders were too general, did not specify precisely what EG had to do, and would likely generate disputes and require court supervision over implementation. Those matters tipped the balance against granting the injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List; Application for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction / Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory mandatory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Mandatory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'adequacy of Damages' 'contractual Construction' 'trade Mark Licence and Sublicence' 'rebranding of Service Stations']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'trade Marks' 'competition and Consumer Law'] ['interlocutory Mandatory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'adequacy of Damages' 'contractual Construction' 'trade Mark Licence and Sublicence' 'rebranding of Service Stations']

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 Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction / Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Mandatory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ampol should be granted an interlocutory mandatory injunction requiring EG to allow access to specified service station sites to remove Caltex Marks and add Ampol Marks.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that cl 8.1 of the Trade Mark Licence Deed entitled Ampol to require EG to allow rebranding of EG sites with Ampol Marks.' 'Whether the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages favoured granting interlocutory mandatory relief that would alter the status quo and substantially give final relief.' 'Whether the proposed orders were sufficiently clear and practical, or would create a real prospect of court supervision of implementation disputes.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although EG accepted there was a serious question to be tried about Ampol's entitlement under cl 8.1 of the Trade Mark Licence Deed, the balance of convenience did not favour the interlocutory mandatory injunction. The relief would compel EG to embark on a fresh course of conduct, materially alter the status quo, and in practical terms give Ampol the final relief sought. The hardship and damages issues were evenly balanced, but the proposed orders were too general, did not specify precisely what EG had to do, and would likely generate disputes and require court supervision over implementation. Those matters tipped the balance against granting the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory mandatory injunction refused.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory mandatory injunction sought by Ampol is declined.' "The defendant/cross-claimant's Amended Notice of Motion filed in Court on 21 July 2021 is dismissed with costs."]