Kahu NZ Ltd v Aviation Utilities Pty Ltd

In the matter of Kahu NZ Ltd v Aviation Utilities Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Kahu NZ Ltd, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, Aviation Utilities Pty Ltd, from terminating their firefighting services contract and to compel the defendant to continue using the plaintiff's services. The court was required to determine whether the application for interlocutory relief met the necessary legal criteria. The court found that while there was a serious question to be tried regarding the lawfulness of the termination, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction. The nature of the contract and the potential risk to safety if the parties were forced to work together despite the alleged breakdown in their relationship weighed against the grant of mandatory relief. The court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, as they were quantifiable and the plaintiff had strong prospects of success in the substantive proceedings. Therefore, the application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.

The court further considered the issue of costs and determined that the application was not brought unreasonably. The usual rule that costs should be in the cause was applicable, and the plaintiff's application for interlocutory relief did not warrant a departure from this principle. The court ordered that the costs of the plaintiff's application for interlocutory relief would be in the cause, and the defendant would pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the defendant's application for costs, to be taxed if not agreed.