Petrovsky v Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Inc

In Petrovsky v Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Inc, the applicants, Dr Nikolai Petrovsky and Vaxine Pty Ltd, sought interlocutory relief against the respondents, the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Inc and Flinders University. The applicants argued that the respondents had breached a joint venture agreement, a licence, and engaged in unconscionable conduct, and sought an injunction, declarations, and damages. The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of the joint venture agreement, the licence, and unconscionable conduct. The court also had to assess whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief and whether damages were an adequate remedy.

The court held that there was no serious question to be tried that the documents and representations relied upon by the applicants established the joint venture agreement as pleaded. The court found that the documents and representations were inconsistent with the terms of the joint venture agreement and did not demonstrate a clear offer and acceptance of such an agreement. The court also held that the applicants had not established, for the purposes of a serious question to be tried, the intention of all of the alleged parties to the joint venture agreement to create legal relations. The court further found that the applicants had not established a serious question to be tried that there was a licence or unconscionable conduct. The court held that the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory relief and that damages were an adequate remedy.

The application for interlocutory relief was dismissed, and costs were reserved. The court noted that the entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.