Wickham, T. v Associated Pool Builders Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 491

Wickham, T. v Associated Pool Builders Pty Ltd & Ors [1986] FCA 491

The applicant had established a serious question to be tried, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting an interlocutory injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy and there was no suggestion of respondents’ inability to pay. Further, delay in bringing the application and prejudice to the respondents from preparations already undertaken made it inappropriate to grant interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (extempore Reasons for Judgment on Interlocutory Application)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'passing Off' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'use of Name and Personality' 'goodwill' 'royalties' 'business Names']
['trade Practices' 'equity'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'passing Off' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'use of Name and Personality' 'goodwill' 'royalties' 'business Names']

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 (extempore Reasons for Judgment on Interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether continued use of business name 'Tracey Wickham Pools' after termination of promotion agreement contravenes sections 52, 53(c), 53(d) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 or constitutes passing off" 'Whether interlocutory relief (injunction) should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had established a serious question to be tried, but the balance of convenience did not favour granting an interlocutory injunction because damages would be an adequate remedy and there was no suggestion of respondents’ inability to pay. Further, delay in bringing the application and prejudice to the respondents from preparations already undertaken made it inappropriate to grant interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • ['Upon the undertaking in terms of paragraph 38 of Geoffrey James Ramsey on behalf of the first, second and third respondents, the application for interlocutory relief is dismissed.' "The costs of the interlocutory proceedings be the first, second and fifth respondents' costs in the principal proceedings." 'No order...