Sydney SuperDome v Consolidated Press

In the case of Sydney SuperDome against Consolidated Press, the SuperDome sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the promoter from booking an act without first offering the SuperDome the opportunity to do so. The dispute centred on whether the promoter had breached an implied negative covenant in a contract by failing to offer the SuperDome the first and last refusal to book an act that the SuperDome claimed was a "Sydney metropolitan indoor area suitable act". The SuperDome also questioned whether the capacity of its venue could be decreased to make it "suitable" under the contract terms.

The court was required to determine whether the act booked by the promoter constituted a "Sydney metropolitan indoor area suitable act" as defined in the contract. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the SuperDome had established a serious question to be tried on the merits of its claim and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also considered the potential damage to both the promoter and the performer if the injunction were granted, versus the likely damage to the SuperDome if the injunction were not granted.

The court held that the SuperDome had established a serious question to be tried on the merits of its claim. The court found that the act booked by the promoter did indeed fall within the definition of a "Sydney metropolitan indoor area suitable act". However, the court also acknowledged that there would be considerable damage to both the promoter and the performer if the injunction were granted, substantially greater than the likely damage to the SuperDome if the injunction were not granted. Consequently, the court declined to grant the injunction, balancing the competing interests and potential harm.

No injunction was granted. The court reserved the matter for a full hearing to determine the merits of the SuperDome's claim against the promoter.