Ocean Dynamics Charter Pty Ltd v Hamilton Island Enterprises Limited

In the case of Ocean Dynamics Charter Pty Ltd v Hamilton Island Enterprises Limited, the applicant, Ocean Dynamics Charter, sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction against the respondent, Hamilton Island Enterprises, claiming that the respondent had taken advantage of its substantial market power to damage or eliminate Ocean Dynamics in the luxury yacht charter market, or to deter competitive conduct. The primary evidence presented by Ocean Dynamics included affidavits from Ms Lewis, the director, while Hamilton Island Enterprises provided affidavits from its CEO and General Manager. The court was required to decide whether a prima facie case existed that the respondent had taken advantage of its market power for a proscribed purpose, and whether the balance of convenience favoured an injunction.

The court found that Ocean Dynamics had established a prima facie case of an entitlement to an injunction to restrain the respondent from preventing the applicant from accessing the marina on commercial terms. The court acknowledged some weaknesses in the prima facie case but noted that the balance of convenience significantly favoured the grant of the interlocutory injunction until trial. The court also considered that there was no basis to conclude that the parties would not act in a dignified and proper, commercial manner. The court granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to tight programming orders to move the matter to trial no later than December to minimise the term of operation of the interlocutory injunction pending determination of final relief.

The court made orders for the respondent to permit the applicant access to a berth at the Hamilton Island Marina on specified terms, including providing notice and paying fees, and complying with the marina rules and regulations. Both parties were granted liberty to apply in the event that circumstances changed substantially. The court also made orders for the entry of the injunction in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.