Annova Pty Limited v Wholesale Brands Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1391

Annova Pty Limited v Wholesale Brands Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1391

An interlocutory injunction was granted because there was no dispute as to a serious question to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the difficulty of quantification, and the balance of convenience—including consideration of public interest in pram safety—favoured restraining certain representations pending expert report. Costs of the application were reserved to be determined after receipt of that report.

Parties
Plaintiff: Annova Pty Limited; First Defendant: Wholesale Brands Pty Ltd; Second Defendant: Anthony James Schmiede; Third Defendant: Tamara Marie Schmiede
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Hearing and Orders on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted; costs reserved; procedural orders made for expert engagement and case management.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, False and Misleading Representations, Australian Consumer Law, Damages, Balance of Convenience, Costs
Equity Practice and Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions False and Misleading Representations Australian Consumer Law Damages Balance of Convenience Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annova Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Wholesale Brands Pty Ltd

First Defendant

Anthony James Schmiede

Second Defendant

Tamara Marie Schmiede

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Hearing and Orders on Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain Defendants from making certain representations about pram compliance with safety standards
  2. 2 Whether there is a serious question to be tried
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

An interlocutory injunction was granted because there was no dispute as to a serious question to be tried, damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the difficulty of quantification, and the balance of convenience—including consideration of public interest in pram safety—favoured restraining certain representations pending expert report. Costs of the application were reserved to be determined after receipt of that report.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted; costs reserved; procedural orders made for expert engagement and case management.

Orders

  • Defendants restrained until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, 2 November 2015 from making representations that the 'I Believe' Pram model I-S021 (a) complies with AS/NZS 2088:2013 standard; (b) complies with AS/NZS 2088:2009 standard; (c) complies with the Australian Mandatory Standard; (d) has a maximum load up to 25kgs.
  • Dr John Asher of Australian Consumers’ Association engaged as single expert.