Ascic v Australian Federal Police

The matter before the Federal Court of Australia was an application by M.S.G. Wehbe Brothers Pty. Limited (the applicant) against Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Limited (the respondent). The applicant sought interlocutory relief, requesting the respondent to continue delivering petroleum products to its retail outlet at 110 Canterbury Road, Bankstown. The applicant argued that the respondent had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct under Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, or alternatively, sought specific performance of a contract to supply petroleum products under general law.

The court had to decide whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the respondent's conduct, and whether the applicant was entitled to interim relief. The applicant contended that the respondent's representations and conduct were likely to mislead, while the respondent argued that the applicant was fabricating jurisdiction and that the relief sought was tantamount to specific performance. The court considered the balance of convenience and the respondent's discretion to decide on the matter.

The court held that a serious question to be tried arose regarding the respondent's conduct and the discretionary defences presented. Given that the respondent had not provided evidence to support its claims, and considering the balance of convenience, the court decided to grant interim relief to maintain the status quo. The court made orders noting the undertakings of both parties regarding damages and costs, and reserved the liberty to apply on two days' notice.