The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1238

The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 1238

The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused because the Court found that the undertaking offered by the first plaintiff (TCPL) not to reduce its cash below the disputed amount (subject to specified exceptions), and to provide notice, was sufficient to protect the defendant's interests. The balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, damages would be an adequate remedy, there was no demonstrated risk of dissipation, and the regime offered by the undertaking better preserved the status quo than granting an injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Equity Commercial List / Interlocutory Application for Injunction (interlocutory Relief)
Outcome
Interlocutory application for injunction refused
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'injunctions' 'joint Venture Disputes' 'partnerships' 'contract Termination' 'trusts and Fiduciary Duties']
['equity' 'commercial Law'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'injunctions' 'joint Venture Disputes' 'partnerships' 'contract Termination' 'trusts and Fiduciary Duties']

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 / Interlocutory Application for Injunction (interlocutory Relief)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining the plaintiffs from disposing of or requiring payment of 40% of certain tax rebates into a controlled monies account pending determination of the proceedings' 'Whether there is a serious question to be tried as to entitlement to payment under the Share Sale Agreement (SSA) or as accrued right after termination' 'Whether balance of convenience favours the grant of injunction' 'Whether damages are an adequate remedy']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interlocutory injunction was refused because the Court found that the undertaking offered by the first plaintiff (TCPL) not to reduce its cash below the disputed amount (subject to specified exceptions), and to provide notice, was sufficient to protect the defendant's interests. The balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, damages would be an adequate remedy, there was no demonstrated risk of dissipation, and the regime offered by the undertaking better preserved the status quo than granting an injunction.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application for injunction refused

Orders

  • ["Defendant's further amended notice of motion filed 10 August 2020 dismissed." "Defendant to pay first and second plaintiffs' costs of the further amended notice of motion filed 10 August 2020." "Liberty to apply on 3 days' notice." 'Court notes undertakings by first plaintiff as to maintaining minimum cash levels...