Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v Thornton (No 2)

In the matter of Mackellar Mining Equipment Pty Ltd v Thornton (No 2), the applicants sought a stay of a decision made on 23 August 2018, which effectively dismissed their application for an anti-suit injunction. The applicants, who had filed an originating application on 6 March 2017, sought various declarations and orders to permanently restrain the respondents from pursuing proceedings scheduled for a three-week trial in Missouri in July 2019. An ex-parte interim injunction was initially granted on 7 March 2017 and subsequently extended multiple times. On 12 October 2017, the respondents sought an order to vacate the interim injunction and for directions regarding the applicants' entitlement to injunctive relief. After a trial on 14 and 15 June 2018, the court delivered its reasons for decision on 23 August 2018, dismissing the application for injunctive relief. The applicants then filed a Notice of Appeal on 6 September 2018, seeking an extension of the stay until the appeal's determination.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the stay should be granted to prevent the orders from becoming nugatory, whether the applicants would suffer prejudice if the stay was refused, and whether the respondents would be disadvantaged if the stay was granted. The principles governing a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal were considered, with the court noting that it is not necessary for the applicant to show exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of the stay. However, the court must ensure that the judgment of the Trial Division is not treated as provisional and that the successful party in the litigation is entitled to the fruits of their judgment.

The court ultimately decided to refuse the application for a stay of the orders dismissing the anti-suit injunction. The interlocutory injunction ordered on 7 March 2017 and extended on subsequent dates was dissolved, and the applicants' claims for injunctive relief were dismissed. The court also ordered an inquiry into any damages sustained by the respondents due to the injunction, with costs and further applications reserved for later determination. The respondents' application regarding other aspects of the originating application was adjourned to a future date.