Mindstore International Limited v Biofeedback International Pty Ltd and Jeremy Fitzpatrick

Mindstore International Limited (the applicant) sought an interlocutory injunction against Biofeedback International Pty Ltd and Jeremy Fitzpatrick (the respondents) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract arising from the respondents' alleged use of confidential information and trade secrets belonging to the applicant. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from continuing certain business activities.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant had established a strong prima facie case of misleading and deceptive conduct under the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth) and whether it had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success in its claims for breach of contract and misuse of confidential information. The Court was also required to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction, weighing the potential harm to the applicant if the injunction was refused against the potential harm to the respondents if it was granted.

Justice Nicole Worth found that the applicant had not established a strong enough prima facie case to warrant interlocutory relief. While acknowledging that arguable cases existed, the Court determined that the evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate a high probability of success at trial. The Court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, as the potential prejudice to the respondents from an injunction outweighed the potential prejudice to the applicant from its refusal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction.