Barbizon v. Euro Automotive Group

Barbizon, a franchisee of Euro Automotive Group, sought an interlocutory injunction against the latter to prevent it from servicing Lamborghini vehicles and selling Lamborghini parts in Queensland, claiming exclusive rights to these activities. Euro Automotive Group contested the application, arguing that Barbizon's rights were not exclusive and that granting the injunction would cause it significant hardship. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Barbizon was entitled to exclusive rights to service and supply Lamborghini parts in Queensland, and if the denial of an injunction would result in irreparable harm to Barbizon's goodwill. Additionally, the court had to consider whether estoppel by convention applied, as Euro Automotive Group had previously acknowledged Barbizon's rights through conduct and representations.

The court found that while Barbizon had exclusive rights to sell Lamborghini vehicles in Queensland, these did not extend to servicing and supplying parts. It was determined that the potential loss of goodwill was not sufficient to justify the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Furthermore, the court held that estoppel by convention did not apply in this context, as Euro Automotive Group's previous acknowledgments did not amount to a promise or assurance of exclusive rights to service and supply parts. Consequently, the application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, with costs reserved for further determination.

The court did, however, impose specific undertakings on Euro Automotive Group. These included maintaining records of its servicing of Lamborghini vehicles and the sale of Lamborghini parts in Queensland, as well as compensating Barbizon for profits made from these activities if Barbizon were to succeed in obtaining a declaration of exclusive rights at trial.