ETT v IPSTAR Australia [2008] NSWSC 644

ETT v IPSTAR Australia [2008] NSWSC 644

There is a serious question to be tried regarding both the construction of the agreement and the balance of payments between the parties. The balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo, as the plaintiff’s potential losses if the injunction is refused are difficult to assess and possibly irreparable, while there is no evidence the defendant would be better off if the injunction were refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction continued until further order; further directions regarding arbitration and costs to be determined after hearing from parties.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'construction of Agreement' 'arbitration Clause' 'balance of Convenience' 'exclusive Distribution Agreements']
['equity' 'contract'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'construction of Agreement' 'arbitration Clause' 'balance of Convenience' 'exclusive Distribution Agreements']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining defendant from acting on notice of termination pending resolution of dispute' 'Proper construction of agreement relating to repurchase price and minimum service fees' 'Whether dispute should be referred to arbitration' 'Adequacy of undertaking as to damages and balance of convenience']

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious question to be tried regarding both the construction of the agreement and the balance of payments between the parties. The balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo, as the plaintiff’s potential losses if the injunction is refused are difficult to assess and possibly irreparable, while there is no evidence the defendant would be better off if the injunction were refused.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction continued until further order; further directions regarding arbitration and costs to be determined after hearing from parties.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages accepted and interlocutory injunction restraining defendant from acting on notice of termination continued until further order.' 'The Court will consider a stay of proceedings if either party elects to proceed to arbitration and the plaintiff undertakes to expedite...