Agro Holdings Ltd v Flexi-Coil (Australia) Pty Ltd

Agro Holdings Ltd, the applicant, filed an application against Flexi-Coil (Australia) Pty Ltd, the respondent, seeking interlocutory relief to prevent the respondent from terminating dealership agreements. The application was based on allegations of misleading conduct by the respondent, which the applicant claimed caused it loss and potential future damage. The application was supported by affidavits from Mr. Selwood, while the respondent relied on an affidavit from Mr. Dorval and sought to use another affidavit from Mr. John Selwood, Company Secretary, subject to objection.

The court needed to determine if the applicant had a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the relief. The applicant argued that the notice of termination was ineffective due to a clause in the Dealership Agreements that required a month's notice to terminate the agreement before its anniversary date. The applicant contended that the clause was intended to prevent the agreement from being automatically renewed unless terminated by the required notice.

The court concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant, given that the respondent was a well-established company with a substantial net worth. The court also found that it was not difficult to calculate any potential damages. The court therefore determined that the application for interlocutory relief by way of interim injunction should be refused.

The court ordered that the application for an interim injunction be refused and that counsel be heard regarding costs.