D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia - [2023] QSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia [2023] QSC 279

PARTIES:
D & L EVENTS PTY LTD

ACN 622 371 500
(applicant/plaintiff)

v
JAI OPETAIA
(respondent/defendant)

FILENO/S: BS No 2868 of 2023

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

REASONS: 8 December 2023

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 17 March 2023

JUDGE: Burns J

ORDERMADE: ORDER:
17 March 2023

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.   The application for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed;

2.   The proceeding continue as if started by claim;

3.   A reference to the “applicant” and the “respondent” is taken to be a reference to the “plaintiff” and the “defendant” respectively;

4.   The plaintiff file and serve its statement of claim by 24 March 2023;

5.   The defendant file and serve its defence and any counterclaim by 7 April 2023;

6.   The plaintiff file and serve its reply and any answer by 14 April 2023;

7.   The parties are to complete any disclosure by 28 April 2023;

8.   Costs reserved.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY – EQUITABLE REMEDIES – INJUNCTIONS – INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTIONS – INJUNCTIONS TO PRESERVE STATUS QUO OR PROPERTY PENDING

DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS – where the applicant, a boxing promoter, applied for interlocutory relief to preserve the status quo under a boxing promotion agreement with the respondent – balance of convenience – whether interlocutory injunction should be granted

Active Leisure (Sports) Pty Ltd v Sportsman’s Australia Limited [1991] 1 Qd R 301, cited

Anderson v G H Mitchell & Sons Ltd (1941) 65 CLR 543, cited
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, cited
Bateman Project Engineering Pty Ltd v Resolute Ltd [2000] WASC 284, distinguished
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618, cited

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council
(1977) 180 CLR 266, cited

Dobbs v National Bank of Australasia Ltd (1935) 53 CLR 643, distinguished
J C Williamson Ltd v Lukey (1931) 45 CLR 282, cited Novamaze Pty Ltd v Cut Price Deli Pty Ltd (1995) 128 ALR 540, cited
Zintix (Australia) Pty Ltd v Employsure Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 924, cited

COUNSEL:
T Matthews KC with D V Ferraro for the applicant/plaintiff

F Corsaro SC with S Baron Levi for the respondent/defendant

SOLICITORS:

Simmons & McCartney for the applicant/plaintiff Woods & Day Solicitors for the respondent/defendant

The applicant, D & L Events Pty Ltd, is a professional boxing promotion company, with its founder and director, Mr Lonergan, having been a boxing promoter for several years. At the time when this application was heard at least, the respondent was the International Boxing Federation (IBF) world cruiserweight champion, having won that title in a fight on 2 July 2022.

On 25 August 2019, the applicant and the respondent entered into a boxer promotion agreement. By letter dated 20 February 2023, the respondent’s solicitors purported to terminate that agreement on various grounds. On the same day, the applicant’s solicitors…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read D & L Events Pty Ltd v Opetaia and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QSC 279
Decision Date: 17 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, D & L Events Pty Ltd, a boxing promoter, sought an interlocutory injunction against Opetaia, a professional boxer, to maintain the status quo of a boxing promotion agreement between the parties. The application was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary dispute centred around the interpretation and enforcement of a contract between the parties, which outlined terms for the promotion of the respondent's professional boxing career. D & L Events Pty Ltd sought an interim injunction to prevent the respondent from engaging in any activities that would breach the terms of the agreement, particularly regarding the exclusive promotion rights.

The court was tasked with deciding whether to grant the applicant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the parties' rights under the agreement. This involved a consideration of the balance of convenience and whether granting the injunction would be in the best interests of both parties. The court had to weigh the potential harm that might occur if the injunction was not granted against the harm that might result if it was granted.

In rendering its decision, the court emphasised the importance of maintaining the status quo in contractual disputes to prevent irreparable harm. It acknowledged that the respondent had not breached the agreement but recognised the potential for future breaches if the injunction was not granted. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory injunction, as it would help preserve the integrity of the promotional agreement and prevent any actions that could undermine the respondent's contractual obligations. The court determined that the applicant had made out a strong case for the relief sought and granted the injunction accordingly.

The final orders of the court included the grant of an interlocutory injunction to D & L Events Pty Ltd, preventing Opetaia from entering into any agreements or taking any actions that would breach the terms of the boxing promotion agreement. The injunction was to remain in place pending the final determination of the parties' rights and obligations under the contract.

Orders