Metcash Trading Limited v Bunn [2009] FCA 1468

Metcash Trading Limited v Bunn [2009] FCA 1468

The application was refused because T.I.G.A. 12/2:2009 did not have the effect of republishing T.I.G.A. 12/1-2009 as contended, there was no evidence apart from receipt by the applicant's adviser that recipients of the earlier publication also received the later one, and the later publication did not publish the matters in the earlier document to any new audience. The alternative s 52 contention could not support an injunction where no separate claim would be brought. The Court also considered it inappropriate to restrict the respondent's freedom to criticise the applicant and the Court order that restrained him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
The first applicant's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'republication' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'freedom of Speech' 'internet Publication']
['injunctions' 'trade Practices' 'defamation or Publication Restraints'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'republication' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'freedom of Speech' 'internet Publication']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the document entitled "T.I.G.A. THE INDEPENDENT GROCERS ADVOCATE, EDITION: 12/2:2009" had the effect of republishing the contents of "T.I.G.A. 12/1-2009".' 'Whether alleged misleading and deceptive statements in T.I.G.A. 12/2:2009 could support injunctive relief under s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) when no separate proceeding would be brought.' 'Whether the Court should restrain the respondent from publishing or republishing T.I.G.A. 12/2:2009 or any substantially similar document.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because T.I.G.A. 12/2:2009 did not have the effect of republishing T.I.G.A. 12/1-2009 as contended, there was no evidence apart from receipt by the applicant's adviser that recipients of the earlier publication also received the later one, and the later publication did not publish the matters in the earlier document to any new audience. The alternative s 52 contention could not support an injunction where no separate claim would be brought. The Court also considered it inappropriate to restrict the respondent's freedom to criticise the applicant and the Court order that restrained him.

Court Disposition

The first applicant's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The first applicant's application made today for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed."]