Bennett v Indoor Holdings Pty Ltd

Bennett sought an interlocutory injunction against Indoor Holdings, seeking to restrain the latter from using a specific business name. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the learned judge granted the injunction and ordered costs to be paid by the appellant. Bennett appealed the decision on two grounds: firstly, that the learned judge had erred in granting the interlocutory injunction, and secondly, that the costs should not have been ordered to be in the cause.

The court examined whether the learned judge's decision to grant the interlocutory injunction was correct. It was noted that interlocutory injunctions are not to be granted as a matter of course, but rather when the applicant demonstrates a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. The court found that the learned judge had applied the correct principles and that the decision to grant the injunction was not erroneous.

Regarding the costs, the court found that the learned judge had misapplied the principles of costs in interlocutory applications. The court held that, in such cases, costs should not be awarded to the applicant unless there are exceptional circumstances. The court found that no such circumstances existed in this case, and therefore the learned judge had erred in ordering costs to be in the cause.

The appeal was allowed in relation to the costs, but dismissed in all other respects. The interlocutory injunction granted by the learned judge was upheld, while the order for costs was set aside. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying the principles of costs in interlocutory applications and the need for careful consideration of the balance of convenience when granting interlocutory injunctions.