Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd [No 7]

In Perdaman Chemicals and Fertilisers Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company Pty Ltd [No 7], the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the sale of power companies in administration by the defendant, and an application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The plaintiff, Perdaman, sought to prevent the defendant from granting security to a bank as a condition of the sale of the power companies. The Full Court held that the plaintiff had not made out a serious issue to be tried that the grant of security by the defendant to the bank would interfere with its rights. The Full Court also held that there was no prima facie case that a winding up order would be made and no other good reasons for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

The Full Court considered the legal issues of whether the plaintiff could establish a serious issue to be tried that the grant of security by the defendant to the bank would interfere with its rights, and whether there were other good reasons for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The Full Court held that the plaintiff had not made out a serious issue to be tried that the grant of security by the defendant to the bank would interfere with its rights. The Full Court found that the balance of convenience was strongly against the grant of an injunction, given the effect of the grant of an injunction on third parties, including the State of Western Australia. The Full Court also held that there was no prima facie case that a winding up order would be made and no other good reasons for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

The Full Court further held that the plaintiff had not made out a serious issue to be tried that the grant of security by the defendant to the bank would interfere with its rights. The Full Court found that the plaintiff had not addressed any of the matters required to be considered in making a decision on an application for an asset preservation order, such as whether it had a good arguable case that it has an accrued or prospective cause of action, and whether it had a serious issue to be tried. The Full Court also found that the balance of convenience was strongly against the grant of an injunction, given the effect of the grant of an injunction on third parties, including the State of Western Australia. The Full Court held that there was no prima facie case that a winding up order would be made and no other good reasons for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.

The Full Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction and the application for the appointment of a provisional liquidator.