Braemar Ltd & Anor v Braemar Appliances Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 653

Braemar Ltd & Anor v Braemar Appliances Pty Ltd & Anor [1987] FCA 653

Although Braemar Limited had deliberately announced that it proposed to breach clause 17 and the respondents showed a strong contractual case, interlocutory mandatory relief was refused because the claim could be adequately met by damages, clause 17(g) itself provided a contractual mechanism for termination and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 1987
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Proceeding Claiming Damages Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Contract / Interlocutory Motions for Restraint and Specific Performance Pending Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Both motions were refused; respondents' costs of the applicants' motion were reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'mandatory Injunction' 'specific Performance' 'adequacy of Damages' 'breach of Contract' 'warranty Obligations']
['contract Law' 'equity' 'trade Practices'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'mandatory Injunction' 'specific Performance' 'adequacy of Damages' 'breach of Contract' 'warranty Obligations']

Source-derived case record

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

Federal Court Proceeding Claiming Damages Under the Trade Practices Act 1974 and Contract / Interlocutory Motions for Restraint and Specific Performance Pending Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Braemar Limited should be restrained until hearing from breaching clause 17 of the agreement dated 17 May 1985.' 'Whether Braemar Limited should be ordered until hearing to comply with or specifically perform clause 17 of the agreement dated 17 May 1985.' 'Whether interlocutory mandatory relief or specific performance should be granted where damages provide an adequate remedy and clause 17(g) provides for termination and damages.' 'Whether the absence of a cross-claim seeking specific performance affected the availability of interlocutory relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although Braemar Limited had deliberately announced that it proposed to breach clause 17 and the respondents showed a strong contractual case, interlocutory mandatory relief was refused because the claim could be adequately met by damages, clause 17(g) itself provided a contractual mechanism for termination and damages, the order sought would require performance of a series of acts over a potentially long period, and Braemar Limited's financial difficulties made such an order inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Both motions were refused; respondents' costs of the applicants' motion were reserved.

Orders

  • ['The motion, notice of which is dated 3 September 1987, be refused.' 'The motion, notice of which is dated 7 October 1987, be refused.' "The respondents' costs of the motion dated 7 October 1987 be reserved."]