NETWORK TEN LTD v FULWOOD [1995] NSWCA 311

NETWORK TEN LTD v FULWOOD [1995] NSWCA 311

The application for an injunction was refused in the exercise of discretion primarily due to delay by Ten in seeking relief, and because there was no basis to depart from the factual findings of the primary judge regarding notice and delay. Although there was a clear breach by Fulwood and Seven, and commercial morality weighed in favour of restraint, the delay, in all the circumstances, justified refusal of the interlocutory injunction. Damages were not considered impossible or impracticable to assess and would suffice as a remedy.

Parties
Plaintiff: Network Ten Ltd; First Defendant: Anne Fulwood; Defendant: The Seven Network Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Single Judge Determination on Urgent Interlocutory Application in Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Enforcement of Employment Contracts, Adequacy of Damages, Delay Affecting Equitable Relief
Contract Law Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Enforcement of Employment Contracts Adequacy of Damages Delay Affecting Equitable Relief

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Network Ten Ltd

Plaintiff

Anne Fulwood

First Defendant

The Seven Network Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Single Judge Determination on Urgent Interlocutory Application in Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should grant an interlocutory injunction restraining Miss Fulwood and Seven from airing a programme before the expiry of Miss Fulwood's contract with Ten
  2. 2 Whether delay by Ten in seeking relief should result in refusal of equitable remedy
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy in lieu of injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an injunction was refused in the exercise of discretion primarily due to delay by Ten in seeking relief, and because there was no basis to depart from the factual findings of the primary judge regarding notice and delay. Although there was a clear breach by Fulwood and Seven, and commercial morality weighed in favour of restraint, the delay, in all the circumstances, justified refusal of the interlocutory injunction. Damages were not considered impossible or impracticable to assess and would suffice as a remedy.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • No injunction granted restraining the broadcast of the programme.
  • Costs of the present application are reserved to the judge dealing with any renewal of the application.