TMA Australia Pty Ltd v Indect Electronics & Distribution GmbH [2013] NSWSC 1375

TMA Australia Pty Ltd v Indect Electronics & Distribution GmbH [2013] NSWSC 1375

The plaintiffs established a sufficient likelihood of final relief on the basis of alleged assurances by Indect E & D to justify limited interlocutory orders. The balance of convenience favoured requiring Indect E & D, on commercial cash terms and for the limited period until final determination or further order, to supply TMA Tech with parts, components and diagnostic and repair services for the 15 existing installations, because refusal risked reputational and customer harm not readily compensable in damages, while the orders required Indect E & D largely to continue prior commercial conduct and were unlikely to cause it significant harm or inconvenience.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Equity Division Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Final Hearing; Related Proceedings Had Been Set Down for Hearing Together Commencing on 24 February 2014
Outcome
Limited mandatory interlocutory relief granted substantially in the form of the plaintiffs' draft short minutes of order, with further argument to be heard about the precise form of orders.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Relief' 'balance of Convenience' 'mandatory Interlocutory Injunction' 'breach of Contract' 'implied Terms in Contract' 'conventional Estoppel' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'assurances by Defendant']
['equity' 'contract Law' 'consumer Law' 'competition Law'] ['interlocutory Relief' 'balance of Convenience' 'mandatory Interlocutory Injunction' 'breach of Contract' 'implied Terms in Contract' 'conventional Estoppel' 'unconscionable Conduct' 'assurances by Defendant']

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

Interlocutory Application for Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in Equity Division Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Before Final Hearing; Related Proceedings Had Been Set Down for Hearing Together Commencing on 24 February 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case or serious question to be tried in relation to claims for breach of contract, estoppel and unconscionable conduct arising from alleged assurances that Indect E & D would supply parts and support for existing IED guidance systems.' 'Whether the balance of convenience justified mandatory interlocutory orders requiring Indect E & D to supply components, parts and diagnostic and repair services to TMA Tech for existing installations.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy if interlocutory relief were refused.' "Whether the plaintiffs should be left to obtain parts and services through Indect E & D's other Australian distributors, who were competitors of TMA Tech."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established a sufficient likelihood of final relief on the basis of alleged assurances by Indect E & D to justify limited interlocutory orders. The balance of convenience favoured requiring Indect E & D, on commercial cash terms and for the limited period until final determination or further order, to supply TMA Tech with parts, components and diagnostic and repair services for the 15 existing installations, because refusal risked reputational and customer harm not readily compensable in damages, while the orders required Indect E & D largely to continue prior commercial conduct and were unlikely to cause it significant harm or inconvenience.

Court Disposition

Limited mandatory interlocutory relief granted substantially in the form of the plaintiffs' draft short minutes of order, with further argument to be heard about the precise form of orders.

Orders

  • ['Interlocutory orders will be made generally in the form of the draft short minutes of order provided by the plaintiffs.' 'The court will hear the parties as to the precise form of the orders.' "The costs of the interlocutory application will be each party's costs in the cause."]