Sellar v Lasotav Pty Ltd

The case of Sellar v Lasotav Pty Ltd involved the plaintiffs seeking an interlocutory injunction against the first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants to restrain them from continuing to use company funds to pay for the legal defence against the plaintiffs' claims for oppression. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had misused company funds to defend the proceedings, which constituted oppressive conduct. They argued that this misuse of funds created an uneven playing field and that the defendants should not be allowed to continue to use company resources for their defence. The defendants, on the other hand, asserted their right to use company funds to defend the claims and pointed to open offers made to purchase the plaintiffs' shares as part of the context in which the application should be assessed.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried, whether they would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court applied the ordinary test for interlocutory injunctions, which required the plaintiffs to demonstrate the likelihood of success at trial, irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and a favourable balance of convenience. The court found that while the plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction due to the absence of evidence of an uplift in the value of the plaintiffs' shares due to oppression.

The court dismissed the balance of the plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and ordered that the proceedings be referred to a mediator for mediation. The plaintiffs were also ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants. The parties were granted liberty to apply on three days’ notice.