Legal Research
Cases
Imac Security Services Pty Ltd v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd

Imac Security Services Pty Ltd v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 19 December 2002 38 min read

Contents

On this page

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8470 of 2002

IMAC SECURITY SERVICES PTY LTD METROPOL SERVICES PTY LTD GRAYWOOD GRANGE PTY LTD	Plaintiffs
v
TYCO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (TRADING AS ADT SECURITY) ZIP RESPONSE GROUP PTY LTD GROUP 4 SECURITAS PTY LTD	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	REDLICH J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Imac Security Services Pty Ltd v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 592	Revision 18.2.03

---

Application for interlocutory injunction to compel performance of service contract - Negative covenants - Inducement to breach contractual arrangements - Whether serious issue to be tried - Balance of convenience - Delay in making application - Damages adequate remedy.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S. Hardy	Keogh & Co
For First Named Defendants	Mr P. Cawthorn	Allens Arthur Robinson
For the Second and Third Named Defendants	Mr I. Martindale	Minter Ellisons

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiffs by a summons dated 13 December 2002 seek interlocutory injunctions against each of the defendants. In the period 2001 to 2002 the firstnamed defendant (Tyco Australia Pty Ltd trading as ADT), entered into franchise agreements with each of the plaintiffs concerning ADT's security business. Each of the franchise agreements was for a three-year period with a further option of three years. ADT had contracts with customers to patrol and keep their premises secure (customer contracts) and also operated a call centre which monitored alarms and allocated responses to activated alarms (alarm response calls). The franchise agreements provided that the plaintiffs would carry out patrol services including regular security inspections of premises where ADT had a customer contract in a geographic area defined and allocated to each plaintiff franchisee. Each plaintiff was paid a percentage of the fee paid by the customer to ADT. When the call centre operated by ADT received an alarm from monitored premises, ADT was required to allocate the alarm response to the plaintiff whose geographic area covered the monitored premises. The franchise agreement provided that, if within a defined period of time, the plaintiff could not respond to the alarm, ADT could call upon other persons to respond to the alarm. The plaintiffs were paid a fee for each alarm response call they made.

It appears that each of the plaintiffs invested significant funds to establish the infrastructure for the businesses which would enable them to meet their obligations under the franchise agreements. Although the evidence relating to the financial circumstances of each plaintiff is imprecise, it is evident that the plaintiffs, or some of their directors, have incurred significant liabilities in establishing their businesses to enable the plaintiffs to discharge their obligations under the franchise agreements with ADT. It also appears that those agreements were performed adequately until the middle of 2002.

By an asset acquisition agreement dated 24 September 2002G3 ADT sold its plant, equipment, the benefit of its customer contracts, the…

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 Imac Security Services Pty Ltd v Tyco Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2002] VSC 592
Decision Date: 19 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Imac Security Services Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction against Tyco Australia Pty Ltd to compel performance of a service contract. The dispute involved allegations of negative covenants and inducement to breach contractual arrangements. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience, the delay in making the application, and whether damages would be an adequate remedy.

The primary legal issues were whether Imac could establish a serious issue to be tried, the balance of convenience in favour of granting an injunction, and the adequacy of damages as a remedy. The court considered the evidence provided by Imac regarding the alleged breaches and inducements, and whether these constituted a serious issue warranting an injunction. Additionally, the court assessed the potential harm to Imac if the injunction was not granted against the likelihood of prejudice to Tyco if the injunction was issued.

The court found that Imac had established a serious issue to be tried, as the evidence presented a plausible case of inducement to breach and negative covenants. However, the court also considered the balance of convenience, which favoured Tyco due to the significant operational disruption an injunction would cause. Furthermore, the court concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy for Imac's losses, which also weighed against granting the injunction.

The court ultimately decided against granting the interlocutory injunction. The decision highlighted the importance of a strong case for serious issue to be tried, a favourable balance of convenience, and the inadequacy of damages as factors in favour of an injunction. The court's ruling underscored the high threshold for interlocutory relief in cases involving contractual disputes.

Orders