Mylne Pty Ltd v Marklyn Enterprises Pty Ltd

In the Federal Court of Australia, Mylne Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, filed an application seeking an interlocutory injunction against Marklyn Enterprises Pty Ltd, the second defendant. The dispute revolves around the second defendant's actions in relation to the first defendant's application for the issue and transfer of a gaming licence and gaming authorities under the Gaming Machine Act 1991. The plaintiff argues that the second defendant's involvement in the licensing process is improper and seeks to prevent the second defendant from proceeding with or granting the first defendant's application.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried and whether an interlocutory injunction was warranted. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff had a sufficient likelihood of success in its claim that the second defendant's actions were unlawful and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an injunction. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

The court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. It found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of an injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the second defendant's actions were unlawful. Therefore, the court ruled that the application should be dismissed.