Noone v Mericka (No 2)

Noone v Mericka (No 2) involved a legal dispute in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought an injunction under the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Vic) in addition to declaratory relief. The defendant challenged the necessity of an injunction and questioned the scope of any proposed injunction. Additionally, the defendant proposed an undertaking as an alternative to an injunction, which the plaintiff contested.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether an injunction was necessary beyond the declaratory relief already granted, the appropriate scope of the injunction if it was to be issued, and whether the defendant's proposed undertaking was sufficient. The court also had to consider whether the costs order should depart from the usual practice due to the nature of the litigation.

The court found that an injunction was not necessary beyond the declaratory relief already granted, as the undertaking provided by the defendant was sufficient to address the plaintiff's concerns. The court considered the nature of the public interest involved and the fact that the matter was defended for private interest. The court concluded that there were no sufficient reasons to depart from the usual order regarding costs, as the primary legal question had been resolved and the public interest was adequately protected.

The final orders included the dismissal of the plaintiff's application for an injunction, with the court accepting the defendant's undertaking as sufficient. The court also made orders as to costs, adhering to the usual practice without deviation.