Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 3) - [2014] ACTSC 75

FINANCIAL INTEGRITY GROUP PTY LIMITED v SCOTT FARMER AND ANOR (NO 3)
[2014] ACTSC 75 (1 May 2014)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Undertakings as to damages in relation to an interlocutory injunction – Whether such an undertaking was given – Evidence establishes an informal undertaking was given – Discussion of principals for undertakings – Damages awarded pursuant to the undertaking

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 6906

Lawbook Co, Injunctions: Law and Practice (Update 14)
Daniells’ Chancery Practice (6th ed, 1884, Steven & Sons: London) vol 2
Seton’s Judgments and Orders (6th ed, 1901, Steven & Sons: London) vol 1

Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1981) 146 CLR 249
Attorney-General v Albany Hotel Company [1896] 2 Ch 696
Blue Seas Investments Pty Ltd v Mitchell (1999) 25 Fam LR 65
Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society (formerly Portsmouth Building Society) v Ricketts [1993] 1 WLR 1545
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Insurance Brokers Association of Australia (1977) 16 ALR 161
Commonwealth v Amman Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 147 CLR 39
East Molesey Local Board v Lambeth Waterworks Company [1892] 3 Ch 289
European Bank Ltd v Evans (2010) 240 CLR 432
Ex parte Hall; Re Wood (1883) 23 Ch D 644
Fenner v Wilson [1893] 2 Ch 656
F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295
Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer [2009] ACTSC 143
Financial Integrity Group Pty Limited v Farmer (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 166
Frigo v Culhaci [1998] NSWCA 88
Golf Lynx v Golf Scene Pty Ltd (t/a Custom Golf Club Co) (1984) 59 ALR 343
Hessin v Coppin (1874) 21 G r 253
Inetstore Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq) v Southern Matrix International Pty Ltd (2005) 221 ALR 179
Ingram v Stiff (1859) Johns 218n
Kerridge v Foley (1968) 70 SR (NSW) 251
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd [1993] AC 227
Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd (1874) LR5PC 221
Macgrath v Hardy (1838) 4 Bing NC 782
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
McCleary v Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) (1998) 20 WAR 288
Meijer (as executors of the estate of the late Van Leeuwen (dec’d) v Zabrisky [2014] QCA 40
National Australia Bank Ltd v Bond Brewing Holdings Ltd [1991] 1 VR 386
National Trust of Australia v Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment (1997) 142 FLR 125
Newby v Harrison (1861) De GF & J 287
Optus Networks Pty Ltd v City of Boroondara [1996] 2 VR 318
Permanent Trustee Co (Canberra) Ltd v Stocks and Holdings (Canberra) Pty Ltd (1976) 15 ACTR 45
Re Hailstone; Hopkinson v Carter (1910) 102 LT 877
Ross v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1987) 70 LGRA 91
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332
Sensis Pty Ltd v McMaster-Fay [2005] NSWCA 163
Soil Conservation Authority v Read [1979]…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] ACTSC 75
Decision Date: 1 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the parties involved were Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd and Farmer, with the dispute being heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether an undertaking regarding damages in relation to an interlocutory injunction had been given. The court had to determine if there was evidence of an informal undertaking and the appropriate principles to apply in this context.

The court examined the evidence and found that there was indeed an informal undertaking given. The court then discussed the principles governing undertakings, particularly in relation to interlocutory injunctions. It was established that such undertakings are intended to ensure that the party seeking the injunction does not cause irreparable harm to the other party. The court concluded that the undertaking had been given and that the plaintiff was liable for damages as per the terms of the undertaking.

Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants the sum of $8,720 as damages due under the undertaking given on 28 August 2007. The court also scheduled a hearing for the parties to present their cases regarding costs. Additionally, the plaintiff was instructed to amend the order made on 28 August 2007 to reflect the fact that the usual undertaking as to damages had been given by their counsel.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff pay to the defendants the sum of $8,720 as damages due under the undertaking as to damages given on 28 August 2007.

2. The parties be heard as to costs.

3. Within seven days, the plaintiff amend the order made on 28 August 2007 to reflect the fact that the usual undertaking as to damages was given by the plaintiff by its counsel.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.