Inxs Hutchence, M.H. & Ors v South Seas Bubble Co. Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 116

Inxs Hutchence, M.H. & Ors v South Seas Bubble Co. Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 116

Because the interlocutory appeal would not necessarily determine all issues between the parties and may not end the litigation, and because the applicants are entitled to adduce further evidence at the final hearing, leave to appeal should not be granted at this stage. The balance of convenience was previously considered, and respondents are adequately protected by the undertaking as to damages and have liberty to apply for dissolution of the injunction.

Parties
First Applicant: MICHAEL KELLAND HUTCHENCE, ANDREW CHARLES FARRISS, TIMOTHY WILLIAM FARRIS, JONATHAN JAMES FARRISS, KIRK PENGILLY and GARRY WILLIAM BEERS all t/as "INXS"; Second Applicant: DUSTBARKO PTY LIMITED t/as MMA MANAGEMENT; Third Applicant: STARSTRUCK MERCHANDISING PTY. LIMITED; Fourth Applicant: HARIKLIA HERISTANIDIS; Fifth Applicant: PHILIP MORTLOCK; First Respondent: SOUTH SEAS BUBBLE COMPANY PTY. LIMITED t/as BOOTLEG T-SHIRTS; Second Respondent: DAPHNE VERA PEARSON; Third Respondent: DESMOND PEARSON; Fourth Respondent: IVY PRINTING PTY. LIMITED
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs ordered against respondents.
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Injunctions, Discretionary Orders, Appeal Procedure, Stay of Orders
Practice and Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Injunctions Discretionary Orders Appeal Procedure Stay of Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MICHAEL KELLAND HUTCHENCE, ANDREW CHARLES FARRISS, TIMOTHY WILLIAM FARRIS, JONATHAN JAMES FARRISS, KIRK PENGILLY and GARRY WILLIAM BEERS all t/as "INXS"

First Applicant

DUSTBARKO PTY LIMITED t/as MMA MANAGEMENT

Second Applicant

STARSTRUCK MERCHANDISING PTY. LIMITED

Third Applicant

HARIKLIA HERISTANIDIS

Fourth Applicant

PHILIP MORTLOCK

Fifth Applicant

SOUTH SEAS BUBBLE COMPANY PTY. LIMITED t/as BOOTLEG T-SHIRTS

First Respondent

DAPHNE VERA PEARSON

Second Respondent

DESMOND PEARSON

Third Respondent

IVY PRINTING PTY. LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal (interlocutory) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal against interlocutory orders should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the appeal would determine all the issues so as to end the litigation
  3. 3 Whether a stay of the interlocutory order should be granted pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Because the interlocutory appeal would not necessarily determine all issues between the parties and may not end the litigation, and because the applicants are entitled to adduce further evidence at the final hearing, leave to appeal should not be granted at this stage. The balance of convenience was previously considered, and respondents are adequately protected by the undertaking as to damages and have liberty to apply for dissolution of the injunction.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs ordered against respondents.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Respondents to pay applicants' costs.