Innua Australasia Pty Ltd v Fortis Bank (Nederland) NV & anor

In the Federal Court of Australia, Innua Australasia Pty Ltd sought to vary an interlocutory injunction against Fortis Bank (Nederland) NV and another. The dispute centred on whether the wording of the injunction should be interpreted to allow certain transactions, which could potentially lead to the insolvency of Fortis Bank. Innua argued that the injunction should be varied to clarify that it did not prohibit the transactions in question, while Fortis Bank contended that any variation would jeopardise its proprietary rights.

The court had to determine whether there was sufficient doubt as to the interpretation of the injunction to warrant its variation. It was also necessary to weigh the potential jeopardy to Innua's proprietary rights against the risk of Fortis Bank's insolvency. The court noted that the existing wording of the injunction was ambiguous and that this ambiguity could lead to significant consequences for both parties. It found that the balance of convenience favoured varying the injunction to provide clarity, as the risk of Fortis Bank's insolvency outweighed the potential jeopardy to Innua's proprietary rights.

The court concluded that it was appropriate to vary the interlocutory injunction to remove the ambiguity and prevent potential insolvency of Fortis Bank. The variation aimed to clarify the scope of the injunction without significantly impacting Innua's proprietary rights. The court held that the injunction should be amended to specify that it did not prohibit the transactions in question, thereby protecting Innua's interests while avoiding the risk of Fortis Bank's insolvency.

The court ordered that the interlocutory injunction be varied to reflect the clarifications made in its judgment. The specific terms of the variation were detailed in the judgment, ensuring that both parties understood the boundaries of the injunction and their respective rights and obligations under it.