MFX Research Pty Ltd v Coleman & Anor [1999] NSWSC 692

MFX Research Pty Ltd v Coleman & Anor [1999] NSWSC 692

The plaintiff should have disclosed the 4 June 1999 letter, and the non-disclosure was serious, but on balance it was not material because it was not shown to have had a significant or influential effect on the determination of the ex parte application, particularly in light of other disclosed material setting out the defendants' position. The other alleged non-disclosures were no more material. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff because the defendants had not complied with orders to identify contracts or deliver up master copies and the plaintiff needed protection of its MFX 2000 technology and commercial opportunities.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Dissolve And/or Discharge Injunction for Material Non Disclosure / Notice of Motion Following Ex Parte Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Non-disclosure serious but not material; injunction continued.
Legal Topics
['ex Parte Injunction' 'material Non Disclosure' 'duty of Candour' 'balance of Convenience' 'delivery Up of Software Technology']
['equity' 'injunctions' 'civil Procedure' 'intellectual Property'] ['ex Parte Injunction' 'material Non Disclosure' 'duty of Candour' 'balance of Convenience' 'delivery Up of Software Technology']

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 to Dissolve And/or Discharge Injunction for Material Non Disclosure / Notice of Motion Following Ex Parte Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff made material non-disclosures on the ex parte application for injunctive relief.' 'Whether the alleged non-disclosures justified dissolving or discharging the injunction.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the interlocutory orders.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff should have disclosed the 4 June 1999 letter, and the non-disclosure was serious, but on balance it was not material because it was not shown to have had a significant or influential effect on the determination of the ex parte application, particularly in light of other disclosed material setting out the defendants' position. The other alleged non-disclosures were no more material. The balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff because the defendants had not complied with orders to identify contracts or deliver up master copies and the plaintiff needed protection of its MFX 2000 technology and commercial opportunities.

Court Disposition

Non-disclosure serious but not material; injunction continued.

Orders

  • ['The defendants failed to obtain orders 1 and 2 in the notice of motion on the basis of material non-disclosure.' 'The restraining orders were continued.' 'The affidavit and delivery up orders were required to be complied with.']