The Mayo Group International Pty Ltd v Hudson Respiratory Care Inc

The Mayo Group International Pty Ltd, an Australian company, sued Hudson Respiratory Care Inc, an American company, over a dispute involving the supply of medical equipment. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether to grant an interlocutory injunction requiring Hudson to continue supplying goods to Mayo during the pendency of the trial. The dispute centred on whether Hudson, which had previously agreed to supply goods but had now ceased doing so, was subject to the Australian court's jurisdiction and whether such an injunction was appropriate.

The central legal issues were whether Hudson, by engaging in business with Mayo and entering into a written agreement, had effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the Australian courts, and whether it was just and convenient to grant an interlocutory injunction requiring Hudson to continue supplying goods pending the outcome of the trial. The court needed to balance the potential harm to Hudson if forced to continue supplying goods against the potential harm to Mayo if the supply ceased.

The court found that Hudson had indeed submitted to the jurisdiction by entering into a written agreement with Mayo, which included a clause that disputes would be resolved in Australian courts. The court also found that it was just and convenient to grant the injunction, as Mayo would suffer significant harm if the supply ceased, and Hudson had not demonstrated that such an order would cause it undue hardship. The court considered the balance of convenience to be in favour of granting the injunction, as the potential harm to Mayo outweighed any inconvenience to Hudson.

The court granted the interlocutory injunction, ordering Hudson to continue supplying goods to Mayo until the final determination of the case. This decision ensured that Mayo could maintain its operations and avoid potential harm while the underlying dispute was resolved.