GIO v Alameddine

In *GIO v Alameddine* [1996] NSWCA 226, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning an application for an interlocutory injunction. The appellant, GIO, sought to restrain the respondent, Alameddine, from continuing to operate a business that allegedly breached a restrictive covenant contained within a contract of sale for a pharmacy. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Alameddine's new pharmacy business, located in close proximity to the pharmacy sold by GIO, constituted a breach of the covenant.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in refusing to grant an interlocutory injunction. Specifically, the court had to assess whether GIO had established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that Alameddine's conduct breached the restrictive covenant. This involved considering the proper construction of the covenant and whether Alameddine's new business fell within its scope, as well as whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an injunction.

The Court of Appeal applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. The court analysed the terms of the restrictive covenant, noting that it prohibited the operation of a pharmacy within a specified radius. It found that the primary judge had correctly considered the evidence and the relevant legal principles, concluding that GIO had not established a sufficient likelihood of success to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction at that stage. The court emphasised that the construction of the covenant and the precise nature of Alameddine's business activities were matters that required a full trial to resolve definitively.

The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the primary judge refusing the interlocutory injunction were affirmed.