Tyro Payments Ltd v Kounta Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1402

Tyro Payments Ltd v Kounta Pty Ltd (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1402

The stay was refused because, although the Court proceeded on the basis that any filed appeal would raise serious issues, the interests of justice and balance of convenience favoured preserving Tyro Payments Ltd's entitlement to the benefit of the 12 month restraint rather than Kounta Pty Ltd's business model and systems. A stay would likely substantially destroy the subject matter of the proceedings because much of the restraint period would expire before an appeal could be determined; damages would be difficult to assess and that difficulty should fall on the party unsuccessful at trial; Kounta had taken a considered litigation risk in setting up its business contrary to Tyro's asserted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal / After Judgment Granting an Injunction Enforcing a Restraint of Trade Clause; Proposed Appeal Not Yet Filed
Outcome
Stay refused.
Legal Topics
['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'injunction' 'restraint of Trade Clause' 'balance of Convenience' 'status Quo' 'undertaking as to Damages']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'contract Law' 'restraint of Trade'] ['stay of Orders Pending Appeal' 'injunction' 'restraint of Trade Clause' 'balance of Convenience' 'status Quo' 'undertaking as to Damages']

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 Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal / After Judgment Granting an Injunction Enforcing a Restraint of Trade Clause; Proposed Appeal Not Yet Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Kounta Pty Ltd should obtain a stay of the injunction pending the filing and determination of any appeal.' 'Whether the proposed appeal raised serious issues for determination.' "Whether the balance of convenience and interests of justice favoured preserving Kounta's business model and systems or preserving Tyro Payments Ltd's benefit of the restraint period." 'Whether damages or undertakings as to damages would adequately address prejudice during any stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because, although the Court proceeded on the basis that any filed appeal would raise serious issues, the interests of justice and balance of convenience favoured preserving Tyro Payments Ltd's entitlement to the benefit of the 12 month restraint rather than Kounta Pty Ltd's business model and systems. A stay would likely substantially destroy the subject matter of the proceedings because much of the restraint period would expire before an appeal could be determined; damages would be difficult to assess and that difficulty should fall on the party unsuccessful at trial; Kounta had taken a considered litigation risk in setting up its business contrary to Tyro's asserted...

Court Disposition

Stay refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay was refused.' "The applicant's notice of motion filed on 19 November 2023 was dismissed with costs."]