ETT v IPstar Australia

The case of ETT v IPstar Australia involved a dispute between the plaintiff, ETT, and the defendant, IPstar Australia. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from appointing another exclusive distributor of broadband satellite products. The dispute arose from a contract between the parties, which included a compulsory arbitration clause, but also reserved the right to seek urgent equitable relief. The court was required to decide whether the defendant would be better off if the injunction was refused and whether the plaintiff's loss would be difficult to assess if the injunction was not granted.

The court considered the balance of convenience and the serious question to be determined in the construction of the agreement. The court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant would be better off if the interlocutory injunction was refused. Furthermore, the court found that it would be difficult to assess the plaintiff's loss if the injunction was not granted. The court held that the compulsory arbitration clause and the right to seek urgent equitable relief were not necessarily alternative courses. Instead, the court found that the parties had reserved their right to seek urgent equitable relief in addition to compulsory arbitration. Therefore, the court granted the interlocutory injunction, requiring that the final relief be sought through arbitration.

The court's decision was based on the balance of convenience and the serious question to be determined in the construction of the agreement. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong case for an interlocutory injunction, and that the defendant had not demonstrated that it would be better off if the injunction was refused. The court also noted that it would be difficult to assess the plaintiff's loss if the injunction was not granted. The court held that the compulsory arbitration clause and the right to seek urgent equitable relief were not necessarily alternative courses, and that the parties had reserved their right to seek urgent equitable relief in addition to compulsory arbitration. The court granted the interlocutory injunction, requiring that the final relief be sought through arbitration.