Wattyl Australia Limited v Orica Australia Pty Limited

Wattyl Australia Limited (the applicant) sought an interlocutory injunction against Orica Australia Pty Limited (the respondent) to restrain the respondent from continuing to operate its chemical manufacturing facility at Botany, New South Wales. The applicant, a competitor in the paint and coatings industry, alleged that the respondent's operations were causing significant air and noise pollution, which in turn was adversely affecting the applicant's ability to conduct its own manufacturing operations at its adjacent facility. The applicant contended that this pollution constituted a nuisance and a breach of statutory environmental protection legislation, and that the continued operation of the facility would cause irreparable harm to its business. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction, and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting such relief. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the respondent's activities constituted a legal nuisance, whether the applicant had demonstrated a breach of relevant environmental laws, and the potential economic and operational impacts on both parties if the injunction were granted or refused. The court also had to assess the adequacy of damages as a remedy for the alleged harm.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require the applicant to demonstrate a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. The court considered expert evidence regarding the nature and extent of the pollution, and the causal link between the respondent's operations and the alleged impacts on the applicant's business. The court also weighed the potential disruption to the respondent's established operations and its contribution to the local economy against the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant. The court found that the applicant had not established a sufficiently strong case on the merits to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction at this stage, and that the balance of convenience did not favour such relief.

The court therefore dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction.