Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock

In *Thomas A Edison Ltd v Bullock*, the plaintiffs, Thomas A Edison Ltd, sought an interlocutory injunction from Barton J. to restrain the defendant, Bullock, from selling Edison phonographs, records, and blanks at prices below the licensed rates and from including unauthorised items in sales. The injunction was granted ex parte, with liberty for the defendant to move to dissolve it. The defendant subsequently moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing both a failure by the plaintiffs to disclose material facts to the court and that no breach of agreement had occurred or was intended.

The legal issues before Isaacs J. were whether the injunction had been improperly obtained due to a lack of full disclosure by the plaintiffs, and, if not, whether the defendant had breached or intended to breach his contractual obligations with the plaintiffs regarding the sale of their products. The court was required to consider the duty of a party seeking an ex parte injunction to present all material facts to the court, and the consequences of failing to do so.

Isaacs J. held that the plaintiffs had failed in their duty of full disclosure when obtaining the ex parte injunction. He found that crucial information regarding the defendant's prior request and the plaintiffs' conditional permission to dispose of his entire phonograph stock, granted in February of that year, had not been presented to Barton J. This omission meant that the learned judge had not been afforded the opportunity to consider the true circumstances and exercise his discretion based on all relevant facts. The court affirmed the principle that a party seeking an ex parte injunction bears a serious responsibility to disclose all material facts, even those that might be detrimental to their application, citing established authorities such as *Dalglish v. Jarvie*.

Although the injunction was dissolved due to the improper ex parte application, the parties agreed to treat the motion as the trial of the action. Upon considering the merits, Isaacs J. found that the defendant had not acted, threatened, or intended to act in violation of the plaintiffs' rights, particularly in light of undertakings given by the defendant's counsel and assurances from the plaintiffs. Consequently, the action was dismissed. The court ordered judgment to be entered for the defendant without costs, considering that while the defendant could have been more explicit, the plaintiffs had been precipitate in their actions.