Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd v Pamada Pty Ltd (in liquidation)

Aquamore Credit Equity Pty Ltd and Aquamore Capital Pty Ltd (collectively "the plaintiffs") brought proceedings against Pamada Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and others (collectively "the defendants"), seeking an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from negotiating for, making offers in relation to, entering into, performing or giving effect to any agreement to sell, transfer, dispose of or grant any interest in intellectual property in respect of a renewable energy generation project. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an agreement to license the intellectual property to Pamada Pty Ltd. The first plaintiff held a charge over the assets of the second plaintiff as security for moneys owed by one of the defendants.

The court was required to decide whether an interim injunction should be granted to prevent the defendants from entering into agreements regarding the intellectual property. The plaintiffs argued that such an injunction was necessary to preserve their rights and prevent irreparable loss or damage. The defendants contended that negotiations should be allowed to continue, as they were not finalising any agreements and that the plaintiffs' rights were adequately protected by other means.

The court granted an interim injunction, but not as to prevent negotiation. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction, as they had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and irreparable loss or damage if the injunction was not granted. The court was satisfied that the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of succeeding in their claim for specific performance of the agreement to license the intellectual property. The court considered the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interim injunction, as the plaintiffs' rights and interests in the intellectual property were at risk of being irreparably harmed if the defendants were allowed to proceed with negotiations and agreements. However, the court did not see the need to prevent negotiation altogether, as the plaintiffs' rights were adequately protected by other means, such as the charge held over the assets of the second plaintiff.

The court made an order granting an interim injunction, but not so as to prevent negotiation, and made ancillary disclosure orders. The defendants were restrained and enjoined from negotiating for, making offers in relation to, entering into, performing or giving effect to any agreement to sell, transfer, dispose of or grant any interest in intellectual property in respect of the renewable energy generation project. The defendants were also restrained from entering into, performing or giving effect to any agreement to sell, transfer, dispose of or grant any interest in the intellectual property. The defendants were ordered to provide disclosure of documents and information related to negotiations and agreements concerning the intellectual property.