Riot Nominees Pty Ltd v Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd & Ors [1981] FCA 45

Parties

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Security for Costs / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim injunction restraining the respondents from refusing to supply Suzuki motor cycles and spare parts on certain terms
2. 2 Whether the applicant, as a trustee, is suing for the benefit of some other person for the purposes of security for costs under Order 28 Rule 3(1)(b)
3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant demonstrated a probable case and risk of injury if the injunction were refused, whereas the respondents did not show they would be prejudiced by the grant of the injunction. Trustees suing as such are not 'nominal plaintiffs' under the rules, and security for costs should not be ordered in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Interim injunctions granted; application for security for costs dismissed; costs reserved as costs in the cause.

Orders

• First and second respondents restrained from refusing to supply the applicant with Suzuki motor cycles, spare parts, accessories and associated services on the same terms as apply to other sellers in metropolitan Melbourne, until trial or further order, upon applicant's usual undertaking as to damages.
• Third, fourth and fifth respondents restrained from giving effect to agreements refusing supply or differential terms in supply of Suzuki spare parts to the applicant as compared to other sellers in metropolitan Melbourne, until trial or further order.