Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2)

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2018] FCA 1097

File number:	VID 1157 of 2017
Judge:	BEACH J
Date of judgment:	5 June 2018
Date of publication of reasons:	24 July 2018
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory injunction – where applicant alleges that product supplied by second respondent to third party was developed using applicant’s information or resources – strength of prima facie case – balance of convenience and impact on third party – application dismissed
Cases cited:	Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 142
Date of hearing:	5 June 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:	18
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Wise QC and Ms N Hickey
Solicitor for the Applicant:	K&L Gates
Counsel for the Second to Fifth, Eighth and Twelfth Respondents:	Mr M Osborne QC and Mr T Warner
Solicitor for the Second to Fifth, Eighth 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

AND BETWEEN:

JOHNNY MENESES

Cross-Claimant

AND:

DIRECTED ELECTRONICS OE PTY LTD (and others named in the Schedule)

First Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:	BEACH J
DATE OF ORDER:	5 JUNE 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s interlocutory application contained in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the interlocutory application dated 25 May 2018 be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the injunction application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEACH J:

1. These reasons explain my dismissal of an application by Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd (Directed OE) for an interlocutory injunction restraining certain conduct of the second respondent Hanhwa Aus Pty Ltd (Hanhwa Aus).

2. This is not the first interlocutory injunction application pursued by Directed OE in these proceedings.  On 19 February 2018, on the application of Directed OE I granted an interlocutory injunction preventing termination of a supply arrangement between Directed OE and the fifth and twelfth respondents.  I published reasons for that decision (Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 142). Those reasons set out some background to the proceedings (at [2] to [5]) and some of the applicable legal principles (at [15] to [19]), which I will not repeat. But whilst that decision in substance concerned a mandatory injunction requiring the fifth and twelfth respondents to continue to supply to Directed OE, the present application principally concerns a more classic prohibitory injunction.

3. Let me sketch out some background to the present application.  Directed OE says broadly that the second to…