East Rockingham RRF Project Co Pty Ltd as Trustee for the East Rockingham RRF Project Trust v Acciona Construction Australia Pty Ltd

In the case of East Rockingham RRF Project Co Pty Ltd as Trustee for the East Rockingham RRF Project Trust v Acciona Construction Australia Pty Ltd, the primary dispute revolved around the obligations of the Acciona parties under an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract for a waste-to-energy facility. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with resolving several applications, including a request for summary judgment, a strike-out application, and applications for suppression and non-publication orders. The central issue was whether the Acciona parties had breached the EPC contract by failing to deliver replacement bank guarantees, and if so, whether East Rockingham was entitled to a mandatory injunction for specific performance or summary judgment.

The court first addressed the summary judgment application, determining that the Acciona parties had no reasonable prospects of successfully defending the claim for breach of specific contract clauses. Consequently, the court resolved the construction issue against the Acciona parties. However, regarding the request for a mandatory injunction for specific performance, the court found that the Acciona parties had reasonable prospects of resisting such relief on discretionary equitable grounds. Despite this, the court concluded that a mandatory interlocutory injunction should be granted to compel the Acciona parties to deliver replacement bank guarantees, subject to appropriate safeguards to maintain the status quo.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the principles of contract law and equity. The court considered the adequacy of damages, the readiness and willingness of the parties to perform, and the dependency of the obligations. While acknowledging the breach, the court emphasised the discretionary nature of equitable relief and the importance of maintaining the balance of equities between the parties. The court also addressed the suppression and non-publication applications, finding them to be without merit. The final orders included dismissal of the strike-out and suppression applications, a variation of the interim suppression order, and directions for further proceedings, including a case management hearing to determine the form of the interlocutory injunction and associated costs.