Cabvan Pty Ltd & Anor v Salice, Arturo S.P.A. & Anor [1998] FCA 553

Cabvan Pty Ltd & Anor v Salice, Arturo S.P.A. & Anor [1998] FCA 553

Although the applicants had an arguable case that a reasonable notice period was longer than six months, the balance of convenience firmly opposed interlocutory relief because the injunction would require the Court to supervise an ongoing commercial distributorship relationship, the respondents had acted in good faith and given notice that was at least arguably reasonable, and damages for loss of profits would not be inadequate or unusually difficult to assess.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Concerning Termination of a Distributorship Agreement / Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Distributorship Agreement' 'reasonable Notice' 'serious Issue to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'supervision of Ongoing Commercial Relationship']
['contract Law' 'equity' 'commercial Law'] ['termination of Distributorship Agreement' 'reasonable Notice' 'serious Issue to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'supervision of Ongoing Commercial Relationship']

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 Injunction Concerning Termination of a Distributorship Agreement / Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious issue to be tried that reasonable notice of termination was 24 months rather than six months.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining the respondents from acting on the termination of the distributorship agreement.' 'Whether damages would be an inadequate remedy if the applicants succeeded at trial.' 'Whether it was appropriate for the Court to supervise an ongoing commercial distributorship relationship by interlocutory injunction.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants had an arguable case that a reasonable notice period was longer than six months, the balance of convenience firmly opposed interlocutory relief because the injunction would require the Court to supervise an ongoing commercial distributorship relationship, the respondents had acted in good faith and given notice that was at least arguably reasonable, and damages for loss of profits would not be inadequate or unusually difficult to assess.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application, including reserved costs."]