Kriketos v Eisman

The applicants, Kriketos, sought an interlocutory injunction in the Federal Court of Australia against the respondents, Eisman, who were engaged in a dispute over an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The applicants sought to restrain the respondents from proceeding with a litigation strategy which they claimed would result in significant prejudice to their interests. The applicants' claim for final relief was not before the court, and the issue before the court was whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted.

The court held that the applicants had not established a serious question to be tried, as their own conduct had resulted in substantial delay in bringing the proceedings. The applicants had been aware of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty for some time, but had taken no action until the respondents had initiated proceedings. The court found that the applicants were guilty of very substantial delay, and that this was a factor which weighed heavily against granting an interlocutory injunction. The court also noted that the applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court refused the application for an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated that they were entitled to the relief they sought, and that the respondents were not precluded from proceeding with their litigation strategy. The court further held that the delay caused by the applicants was a significant factor which weighed against granting an interlocutory injunction.

No orders were made by the court.