Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd v Bunbury Port Authority (No 2)

Stirling Harbour Services Pty Ltd (the applicants) sought an injunction to restrain the Bunbury Port Authority (the BPA) from proceeding with a tender process for the provision of towage services at the Bunbury Port. The applicants' contract for the provision of towage services had been terminated by the BPA. The applicants sought an injunction on the basis that the BPA's decision to terminate their contract was unlawful and that the BPA's proposed tender process was unfair. The High Court of Australia heard the applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The legal issues before the court were whether the BPA's decision to terminate the applicants' contract was unlawful and whether the BPA's proposed tender process was unfair. The court also had to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interlocutory injunction to restrain the BPA from proceeding with the tender process.

The court held that the BPA's decision to terminate the applicants' contract was not unlawful and that the BPA's proposed tender process was fair. The court found that the BPA had acted within its statutory powers in terminating the applicants' contract and that the tender process was designed to promote competition in the market for towage services at the Bunbury Port. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the applicants had no private rights which would be adversely affected by the continuance of the tender process and that any adverse impacts of a successful appeal upon the BPA and the successful tenderer were part of a commercial risk which should be assessed by them rather than imposed upon them by the court. The court held that if the tender process was enjoined pending the appeal, there was a significant risk that it would have to be recommenced with costs and inconvenience to all concerned.

The applicants' motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed with costs.

The court ordered that the applicants' motion filed on 8 February 2000 be dismissed and that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the motion.