The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd

In the case of The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd, the defendants sought an interlocutory injunction against the plaintiffs to compel the first plaintiff to deposit 40% of certain tax rebates into a controlled monies account. The relief was sought in the context of a broader dispute between the parties over the ownership of certain intellectual property. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated funds. The application was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge had to determine whether the defendants had established a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendants had made out a prima facie case that they would succeed at trial and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court had to weigh the potential harm to the plaintiffs if the injunction were granted against the risk of prejudice to the defendants if the injunction were not granted. Additionally, the court had to consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendants in the event the plaintiffs were found liable at trial.

The court found that the defendants had established a serious question to be tried, but declined to grant the interlocutory injunction. The court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the defendants. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs had provided an undertaking not to reduce their cash levels beyond the amount claimed by the defendants, excepting payments incurred in the ordinary course of business. This undertaking mitigated the potential harm to the plaintiffs if the injunction were not granted. The court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy for the defendants in the event they were successful at trial. Consequently, the court refused the interlocutory injunction.

The court did not make any final orders, as the interlocutory injunction was refused on the basis of the undertaking provided by the plaintiffs. The case was to proceed to trial on the merits.