Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd

Mineralogy Pty Ltd sought an urgent interlocutory mandatory injunction against Sino Iron Pty Ltd, seeking interim payments of royalties under a long-term contract. The primary judge dismissed the application, concluding that the enforceability of the royalty provision was contentious and that no assessment of the strength of Mineralogy's claim had been made. Mineralogy appealed the decision, arguing that the primary judge failed to make an assessment of the strength of their claim for royalty and whether the test applied for an interlocutory mandatory injunction differed from that for an interlocutory prohibitory injunction.

The court considered the nature of the relief sought and the principles governing interlocutory injunctions. It emphasised the importance of assessing the strength of a party's claim when deciding whether to grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction. The court concluded that the primary judge erred by not making an assessment of the strength of Mineralogy's claim for royalty. It held that the test to be applied for an interlocutory mandatory injunction was the same as for an interlocutory prohibitory injunction, requiring the court to consider whether the applicant has a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.

Accordingly, the court upheld the appeal and remitted the application for an interlocutory mandatory injunction to be heard before a different judge. The remittal allows for a fresh assessment of the strength of Mineralogy's claim and a proper consideration of the appropriate test for granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction. This ensures that the applicant's entitlement to the relief sought is properly evaluated, and the interests of both parties are fairly balanced in the interim period.