Words of employer’s counsel clearly indicated undertaking was required and would be given – Giving of undertaking effective even though it was less than expressly and unambiguously given: Financial Integrity Group Pty Ltd v Farmer (No 3) [2014] ACTSC 75

Damages in lieu – Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Retail Freeholds Pty Ltd 16 WAR 282

Whether injunction available against the Crown: Kilpatrick Green v. State Supply Board 56 SASR 591

Restraint from statutory tribunal from holding inquiry – Civil action concerning same issues – Restraint until civil action completed – Public interest considerations: Varnavidis v Dental Board of Victoria [1999] VSC 68

Comparison between equitable and statutory right to injunctive relief: TPC v Gold Coast Property 126 ALR 139

Equitable remedies – Interlocutory injunctions – Application for interlocutory injunction – Injunction sought to restrain prospective breach of contract: Beautrans Pty Ltd v CSR [2002] QSC 002

Where plaintiff has no means and is legally aided, no need for undertaking: Szentessy v Woo Ran (1985-1986) 64 ALR 98

Equity – interlocutory injunction – contract – Siemens sought interlocutory injunction to restrain insolvent company from recourse to three bank guarantees given in respect of construction of a power station – conceded that there was a serious question to be tried – s471B Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – held: Siemens demonstrated likelihood of losses for which it could not be adequately compensated by award of damages – loss of reputation difficult to quantify fairly and in any case was a loss which Siemens would have to recover from an insolvent party – balance of convenience favoured injunction – injunction granted on usual undertaking by Siemens that it would prosecute proceeding with due diligence and undertaking to provide security: Siemens Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] QSC 184

Equity – solicitor commenced proceedings for assessment of costs – clients asserted there were no costs agreements between them and the solicitor – clients sought order similar to Anton Pillar order to obtain access to and make of copies of material on solicitor’s computer – clients were concerned that if they sought discovery in the normal manner solicitor may be able to alter or destroy evidence as to date of creation of various costs agreements – held: Court not satisfied there had been false creation of documents but there was some evidence to support the contention – for client to have to present normal application for discovery could act to clients’ disadvantage forensically – ambit of information sought was narrow – proposed orders specifically detailed what was required of recipients – consequences of orders would cause little or no prejudice to solicitor if there had been no recent creation – Anton Pillar order made: Ho v Fordyce (ex parte) [2014] NSWSC 1404

Freezing orders – Allianz sought interim preservation orders in support of proprietary claim over funds that respondent company held in bank account – Allianz sought to continue restraints against company dealing with funds or non-proprietary freezing order – judgment debtor had become bankrupt and caused funds to be transferred to company which he controlled – company submitted Court should not place any restraint on its use of funds – held: company was exercising power of disposition over assets of judgment debtor and in position of control or influence concerning those assets – r25.14(5) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) satisfied – Allianz entitled to freezing order – Court continued all existing orders – respondent ordered to pay into Court balance of money which judgment debtor paid to company: Allianz v Vitale [2015] NSWSC 352

Interlocutory injunction – restraint of trade – contract – defendant sold medical practice to first plaintiff – sale agreement included clause restraining defendant from practicing medicine within specified geographical area for specified period – defendant took up practice in breach of clause – plaintiffs sought interlocutory injunction restraining defendant from acting in breach of clause pending trial – held: Court satisfied first plaintiff demonstrated prima facie case that restraint imposed by clause was reasonable and enforceable – balance of convenience favoured grant of injunction – interlocutory injunction granted: Sidameneo Pty Ltd v Plint [2015] WASC 243

Injunction – plaintiff subcontracted by defendants in relation to project – plaintiff sought to restrain first and second defendants from calling on performance bond – final relief sought by plaintiff was that defendants “return” bond on basis they were bound to release it on achievement of practical completion of the sub-contract – held: Court satisfied there was serious question to be tried whether there had been Practical Completion and plaintiff now entitled to return of bond – strong prima facie case for relief – balance of convenience was in plaintiff’s favour – interlocutory injunction granted: Heyday5 Pty Ltd v Cockram Constructions NSW Pty Ltd [2015] NSWSC 884

Interim injunction -Application to restrain defendant from making request, call or demand for payment pursuant to unconditional bank guarantees – Whether there is a serious question to be tried – Balance of convenience – Whether damages inadequate: Best Tech & Engineering Ltd v Samsung [2015] WASC 355