Australian Bluefin Pty Ltd v Greenpeace Australia Ltd [1998] FCA 73

Australian Bluefin Pty Ltd v Greenpeace Australia Ltd [1998] FCA 73

Although there was a serious question to be tried against the Rainbow Warrior and Greenpeace, and the economic balance of convenience favoured the applicant, injunctive relief was not appropriate because the evidence did not establish a real threat of imminent future harm during the remaining fishing season. Given the preliminary state of the evidence, the application was adjourned rather than dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding Seeking Interim and Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Preliminary Interlocutory Application; Interim and Ex Parte as to the Second Respondents, Who Had Not Been Served
Outcome
Interim and interlocutory injunctive relief declined; application not dismissed and adjourned to a date to be fixed, with liberty to call on at short notice.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'interim Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'imminent Harm' 'tortious Interference With Fishing Operations' 'service on Unserved Respondents']
['civil Procedure' 'injunctions' 'torts'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'interim Injunction' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'balance of Convenience' 'imminent Harm' 'tortious Interference With Fishing Operations' 'service on Unserved Respondents']

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

Civil Proceeding Seeking Interim and Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Preliminary Interlocutory Application; Interim and Ex Parte as to the Second Respondents, Who Had Not Been Served

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the Rainbow Warrior engaged in tortious conduct interfering with the applicant's fishing operations." 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that Greenpeace was liable for the alleged conduct as an actor or as an aider and abetter.' 'Whether the balance of convenience and the existence of any real threat of imminent harm justified interim or interlocutory injunctive relief.' 'Whether the application should be dismissed or adjourned in light of the preliminary state of the evidence and possible changed circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a serious question to be tried against the Rainbow Warrior and Greenpeace, and the economic balance of convenience favoured the applicant, injunctive relief was not appropriate because the evidence did not establish a real threat of imminent future harm during the remaining fishing season. Given the preliminary state of the evidence, the application was adjourned rather than dismissed.

Court Disposition

Interim and interlocutory injunctive relief declined; application not dismissed and adjourned to a date to be fixed, with liberty to call on at short notice.

Orders

  • ['The orders sought are declined.' 'The application for interim and interlocutory relief is declined.' 'The application for interim and interlocutory relief is adjourned to a date to be fixed with liberty to be called on at short notice.' 'A directions hearing was fixed for 9.15 am on 27 February 1998.']