Renzon Newbern Nominees Pty Ltd v Halliday

[2000] VSC 344

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
PRACTICE COURT	Not Restricted

No. 6444 of 2000

RENZON NEWBERN NOMINEES PTY. LTD. (ACN 005 247 245)	Plaintiff
v.
PETER CAMERON PAUL HALLIDAY	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 AUGUST 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 AUGUST 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	RENZON v. HALLIDAY
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 344

---

CATCHWORDS:      Interlocutory injunction – Defendant publishing financial information re plaintiff to plaintiff's creditors – Serious issue to be tried – Balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	I. Jones	Middletons Moore & Bevins
For the Defendant	In Person

HIS HONOUR:

1. On 11 August last I made a number of orders against the defendant in this proceeding, Peter Cameron Paul Halliday, designed to restrain the defendant from publishing statements to persons concerning the financial or business affairs of the Sheldons Linen Service business. 

1. The plaintiffs in the proceeding, Renzon Newbern Nominees Pty Ltd and Cabassi Pty Ltd, purchased the Sheldons Linen Service business from the liquidators of the Sheldon group of companies in May 2000 for approximately $4,600,0000. 

1. Since that time the defendant has alleged that he is the trustee of property formerly owned by Sheldons and which of course is now the property of the plaintiffs.

1. On 21 June last he made an application to Mandie, J. of this court to have that property vest in him as trustee.  His application in that regard was dismissed that day by Mandie, J., who found that he was not.

1. The defendant has now launched an appeal in respect of His Honour's findings to the Court of Appeal.  In my opinion that aspect of the matter has no relevance at all to the issues I am required to determine this morning.  What I am required to determine is whether there is a serious issue to be tried concerning the plaintiffs' present application that the defendant has been circulating material concerning the financial affairs of Sheldons Linen Service business to customers of the plaintiffs, thereby causing detriment to the plaintiffs.

1. The short answer to that question is that there is a serious issue to be tried concerning the matter.  It is clear that even despite the order made on 11 August the defendant has continued to circulate material concerning the financial affairs of the plaintiffs, or, more accurately, the financial affairs of Sheldons Linen Service business, to a number of persons and companies including customers and competitors of the plaintiffs.

1. Being satisfied as I am that there is that serious issue to be tried, the next matter I am required to determine is where the balance of convenience lies.  In other words, does it lie in favour of the grant or the continuation of injunctive relief or does it not? 

1. In my opinion, in this case it can be said that the balance of convenience is all one way, and that is in favour of the plaintiffs.  If the defendant is permitted to continue circulating damaging material concerning the financial affairs of the Sheldons Linen Service business to customers of the plaintiffs and their competitors, clearly significant financial harm could be caused to the plaintiffs, harm which it may be very difficult at a later stage to quantify.

1. In that situation I propose to continue certain of the injunctive relief granted by me on 11 July to the trial of the proceeding.  The injunctions I grant today will be in a somewhat different form from those granted on 11 July, having regard to events that have occurred in the intervening period.

1. Firstly, I order that the defendant, whether by himself, his servants, agents, employees or howsever otherwise, be restrained until the hearing and determination of this proceeding or further order of this court from -

(a)making or publishing any representation or statement, whether written or oral, to any person or company other than to the plaintiffs by communication to their solicitor, Christopher Nichau of Middletons Moore and Bevins, or any legal adviser to the defendant, in which there is any reference to any matter concerning the financial or business affairs of the PLS Sheldons business;

(b)making or attempting to make any communication, whether written or oral, to the plaintiffs or to Paul Christophilopoulos or Con Christophilopoulos, other than by communication to their solicitor, Christopher Nichau of Middletons Moore and Bevins, solicitors.

1. I propose to order that, subject to any order of the trial judge to the contrary, the trial of this proceeding be by affidavit.

1. I order that any further affidavits to be relied upon by the plaintiffs be sworn, filed and served by 15 September, and that any further affidavits to be relied upon by the defendant be sworn, filed and served by 29 September.

1. I refer the proceeding to the Listing Master to enable a date to be fixed for the trial of the proceeding in the Cause List on a date subsequent to 30 September.

1. I direct that this order be prepared by the solicitors for the plaintiff and brought to me for authentication.

1. I direct that within seven days of authentication a copy of the order be served on the associate to the Listing Master.

1. It follows from what I have said, Mr Jones, that I did not in the circumstances consider any good purpose would be served by making the other orders sought.

1. I shall simply reserve the question of costs.

---