FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 142
File number: VID 1157 of 2017 Judge: BEACH J Date of judgment: 19 February 2018 Date of publication of reasons 22 February 2018 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory injunction – where applicant alleges a supply agreement arising from long-standing conduct – where suppliers have notified intention to terminate supply – what constitutes a reasonable period of notice – application granted in part Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57
Australian Rugby Union Ltd v Hospitality Group Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1136
Businessworld Computers Pty Ltd v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1988) 82 ALR 499; [1988] FCA 206
Crawford Fitting Co v Sydney Valve & Fittings Pty Ltd (1988) 14 NSWLR 438
Metro Investments Holdings Pty Ltd v GM Holden Ltd [2017] FCA 1523
Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WASC 375
Moonlighting International Pty Ltd v International Lighting Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1872
Moonlighting International Pty Ltd v International Lighting Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 41
Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238
Sanderson Motors (Sales) Pty Ltd v Yorkstar Motors Pty Ltd [1983] 1 NSWLR 513
SPAR Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS Qld Pty Ltd (No 1) [2011] FCA 1054
Date of hearing: 19 February 2018 Registry: Victoria Division: General Division National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 63 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Wise SC and Ms N Hickey Solicitor for the Applicant: K&L Gates Counsel for the Fifth and Twelfth Respondents: Mr M Osborne QC and Mr T Warner Solicitor for the Fifth and Twelfth Respondents: Mills Oakley ORDERS
VID 1157 of 2017 BETWEEN: DIRECTED ELECTRONICS OE PTY LTD (ACN 130 647 737)
Applicant
AND: OE SOLUTIONS PTY LTD (ACN 119 188 019)
First Respondent
HANHWA AUS PTY LTD (ACN 614 943 092)
Second Respondent
HANHWA HIGHTECH AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 153 718 435) (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
JUDGE:
BEACH J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 FEBRUARY 2018
UPON THE APPLICANT UNDERTAKING TO THE COURT BY ITS COUNSEL TO:
(a)submit to such order (if any) as the Court may consider to be just for the payment of compensation, to be assessed by the Court or as it may direct, to any person, whether or not a party, adversely affected by the operation of order 1 below or any continuation (with or without variation) thereof; and
(b)pay the compensation referred to in (a) to the person or persons there referred to.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The fifth and twelfth respondents be restrained from acting upon the Hanhwa Korea Notice as defined in paragraph 129 of the statement of claim dated 13 December 2017 in this proceeding until 17 May 2018.
2.The costs of and incidental to the applicant’s interlocutory application dated 14 February 2018 be reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with…
Continue reading Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 142
- Case
- [2018] FCA 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the applicant had established a sufficient likelihood of proving the existence of a valid contract, whether the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted, and what constituted a reasonable period of notice for terminating the supply agreement. The court also needed to weigh the harm that each party would suffer if the injunction was granted or denied.
In its decision, the court found that while the respondents had some valid arguments, the applicant would suffer greater harm if the injunction was not granted than the respondents would suffer if it was granted. The court also found that damages may not be an adequate remedy for the applicant. Therefore, the court granted the injunction, but in a more limited form than requested by the applicant, extending only until 17 May 2018. The court considered this period to be a reasonable notice period for the respondents to wind down the supply arrangement.
The final orders of the court were that the fifth and twelfth respondents were restrained from acting upon the Hanhwa Korea Notice until 17 May 2018. The costs of the interlocutory application were to be reserved.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The fifth and twelfth respondents be restrained from acting upon the Hanhwa Korea Notice as defined in paragraph 129 of the statement of claim dated 13 December 2017 in this proceeding until 17 May 2018.
2. The costs of and incidental to the applicant’s interlocutory application dated 14 February 2018 be reserved.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.