In the matter of U&D Coal Limited [2014] NSWSC 1128

In the matter of U&D Coal Limited [2014] NSWSC 1128

The injunction was continued because the interlocutory decision risked having a significant practical final effect in either direction, but continuation did not necessarily finally defeat the transaction given the prospects of the Sky Holdings offer being extended or renewed, other finance from Shengtai, or funding from the plaintiff; refusal would risk the share issue proceeding, dilution of the plaintiff's interest, and intervention of third-party rights involving Sky Holdings and possible further dealings with the shares. The plaintiff's undertaking as to damages and financial position did not weigh heavily against continuation. Having considered the relative strengths of the cases and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Equity Division Corporations List; Interlocutory Injunction / Part Heard Application; Further Continuation of Injunction Pending Continuation of Hearing
Outcome
Injunction continued until 31 July 2014.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'share Issue' 'balance of Convenience' 'practical Final Effect of Interlocutory Relief' 'undertaking as to Damages']
['equity' 'corporations'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'share Issue' 'balance of Convenience' 'practical Final Effect of Interlocutory Relief' '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

Equity Division Corporations List; Interlocutory Injunction / Part Heard Application; Further Continuation of Injunction Pending Continuation of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the injunction restraining the defendants from considering or adopting a resolution to issue shares in the first defendant should be further continued until 31 July 2014.' 'How to approach an interlocutory injunction where deciding the interlocutory question may in a practical sense finally resolve the matter.' "Whether the risk that Sky Holdings' offer would be withdrawn, the possible dilution of the plaintiff's interest, third-party rights, and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages favoured continuation of the injunction."]

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was continued because the interlocutory decision risked having a significant practical final effect in either direction, but continuation did not necessarily finally defeat the transaction given the prospects of the Sky Holdings offer being extended or renewed, other finance from Shengtai, or funding from the plaintiff; refusal would risk the share issue proceeding, dilution of the plaintiff's interest, and intervention of third-party rights involving Sky Holdings and possible further dealings with the shares. The plaintiff's undertaking as to damages and financial position did not weigh heavily against continuation. Having considered the relative strengths of the cases and...

Court Disposition

Injunction continued until 31 July 2014.

Orders

  • ['The injunction contained in paragraph 1 of the order made on 22 July 2014 and continued on 29 July 2014 be further continued until and including 31 July 2014.']