In the matter of Arada Australia Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs, Arada Australia Pty Ltd, sought an interlocutory injunction against the defendants in a matter before the court. The dispute centred around the registration of the second plaintiff as a director of a company. The defendants offered an undertaking to take all reasonable steps to ensure the second plaintiff's registration, yet the plaintiffs argued that this was insufficient. The court had to determine whether the balance of convenience favoured the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. The defendants did not contest that there was a serious question to be tried, but they argued that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiffs.

The court examined whether there was a real risk that the company's management would become dysfunctional if the injunction was not granted. It considered the potential harm to the company's operations and the likelihood of the second plaintiff being registered as a director. The court found that the defendants' undertaking, coupled with the lack of a strong showing that the balance of convenience favoured the injunctive relief, meant that the risk of dysfunctional management outweighed the need for an immediate injunction. Consequently, the plaintiffs' application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed.

The court further determined that the costs of the application should be decided on the papers, without the need for a further hearing. This decision reflected the court's view that the matter was adequately addressed by the submissions and evidence already provided. The dismissal of the application and the direction for costs to be decided on the papers underscored the court's assessment of the balance of convenience and the risk of operational harm.