Adcon v Icon

Adcon Constructions Pty Ltd applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Icon Constructions Pty Ltd from calling on bank guarantees provided by Adcon in connection with a building subcontract. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute was whether Icon had the right to demand the guarantees due to alleged breaches by Adcon, or whether the breaches did not justify such action.

The court was required to determine whether Icon had established a serious issue to be tried concerning the interpretation of the contract and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also considered whether it was appropriate to decide the contract interpretation question as if on a final basis. In assessing these issues, the court examined the merits of the case and the potential prejudice that either party might suffer if the injunction were granted or refused.

The court found that Icon had not established a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the contract interpretation question. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not appropriate to decide the interpretation issue as if on a final basis. The balance of convenience also did not favour granting the injunction. Therefore, the application was dismissed. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of a cautious approach in interlocutory injunction matters, especially when the issues involved complex contractual disputes.