Just Better Care Australia Pty Ltd v Just Better Care Canberra Pty Ltd (Trustee)

The dispute between Just Better Care Australia Pty Ltd (JBCA) and Just Better Care Canberra Pty Ltd (JBCC) (Trustee) involves allegations of breaches of an agreement and appropriation of intellectual property. JBCA sought an interlocutory injunction against JBCC, Vivere, TFR, Mr Nelson, and Mr Woolley, claiming that the transfer of information amounted to the appropriation of intellectual property and confidential information, in breach of the Agreement, and that the restraint clause was also breached. JBCA further alleges that by continuing to be involved in the business of Vivere, Mr Nelson acted in breach of the restraint clause, and that Vivere, TFR and Mr Woolley are each in breach of obligations owed to JBCA. JBCA contends that it is entitled to step in and conduct the former business of JBCC, which it alleges is now being conducted by Vivere, TFR, Mr Woolley and Mr Nelson. The court was required to decide whether the balance of convenience warranted the grant of the interlocutory injunction sought by JBCA. The court considered the principles applicable to the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require a showing of a prima facie case, a sufficient likelihood of success, and consideration of whether the balance of convenience warrants the grant of the relief. The court found that while there was an arguable case that there had been breaches of the Agreement and possibly some of the other causes of action, it was by no means clear that there was a strong arguable case that breaches warranting the relief sought in the interlocutory application had been established. However, the court was persuaded that the balance of convenience points strongly against the grant of the interlocutory relief sought, as the primary relief for JBCA lies in damages and the franchise fees and marketing levies charged by JBCA in the year 2016 were about $365,000, which is a loss that can be recompensed by damages. Furthermore, each of Mr Nelson and Mr Woolley have interests in real estate which combined appear to considerably exceed the value of this amount and are prepared to provide undertakings to the Court not to dispose of that real estate pending the outcome of the proceedings.

The court ultimately found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the interlocutory injunction sought by JBCA. The court noted that the primary relief for JBCA lies in damages, and that damages would be an adequate remedy for the alleged harm suffered by JBCA. The court also considered the potential prejudice or harm that would be suffered by the respondents or third parties if an injunction was granted. The court found that the harm to the respondents or third parties would outweigh any harm to JBCA if no injunction was granted. The court also noted that each of Mr Nelson and Mr Woolley have interests in real estate which combined appear to considerably exceed the value of the alleged loss, and that they are prepared to provide undertakings to the Court not to dispose of that real estate pending the outcome of the proceedings. The court ultimately found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the interlocutory injunction sought by JBCA. The court's decision was based on a consideration of the principles applicable to the grant of interlocutory injunctions, the arguable case made by JBCA, and the balance of convenience. The court found that while there was an arguable case that there had been breaches of the Agreement and possibly some of the other causes of action, it was by no means clear that there was a strong arguable case that breaches warranting the relief sought in the interlocutory application had been established. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the interlocutory injunction sought by JBCA, as the primary relief for JBCA lies in damages, and damages would be an adequate remedy for the alleged harm suffered by JBCA.