EG FuelCo (Australia) Ltd v Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd

The matter before the court involved EG FuelCo (Australia) Ltd, the plaintiff, and Ampol Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction against the defendant, which held a licence for the Caltex trade marks and had sub-licenced those marks to the plaintiff for use in its service stations. The defendant's entitlement to use the Caltex marks was set to expire at the end of 2022. The plaintiff contended that the defendant could not compel it to rebadge its sites using the Ampol marks, while the defendant argued that it could. The court was required to decide whether an injunction should issue compelling the plaintiff to allow the defendant access to 87 of its sites to effect such rebadging.

The court considered the balance of convenience and whether an interlocutory mandatory injunction should be granted. The plaintiff argued that it had not been given a reasonable opportunity to negotiate a new agreement with the defendant and that it was not in the best interests of the public for the plaintiff to be forced to rebadge its sites. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that it had a right to rebadge the sites and that the plaintiff's refusal to allow access to the sites would cause irreparable harm to its business. The court noted that the plaintiff's business was dependent on the use of the Caltex marks, and that the defendant's entitlement to use those marks was set to expire at the end of 2022. The court held that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant, and that an interlocutory mandatory injunction should issue compelling the plaintiff to allow the defendant access to 87 of its sites to effect the rebadging.

The court further held that the plaintiff's refusal to allow access to the sites would cause irreparable harm to the defendant's business and that the defendant had a right to rebadge the sites. The court noted that the plaintiff had not been given a reasonable opportunity to negotiate a new agreement with the defendant, but that this did not necessarily mean that the defendant could not compel the plaintiff to rebadge its sites. The court held that the defendant had a right to rebadge the sites and that the plaintiff was not entitled to refuse access to the sites. The court further held that the plaintiff's refusal to allow access to the sites would cause irreparable harm to the defendant's business and that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The court ordered that an interlocutory mandatory injunction issue compelling the plaintiff to allow the defendant access to 87 of its sites to effect the rebadging of the sites using the Ampol marks. The court further ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application.