Mineralogy Pty Ltd v Sino Iron Pty Ltd

[2016] WASCA 105

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Mandatory injunctions
4. › Whether test for interlocutory mandatory injunction different from prohibitory injunction
5. › Whether court required to assess strength of applicant's case
6. › Whether failure to assess strength of case constituted error
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory injunctions
3. › Balance of convenience
4. › Assessment of strength of prima facie case
5. › Relationship between strength of case and balance of convenience
6. › Whether matters are related not independent inquiries
1. Contract
2. › Construction
3. › Long-term contracts
4. › Royalty provisions
5. › Reference to external pricing mechanism
6. › Whether obligation void for uncertainty where pricing mechanism ceases to operate
7. › Severability

Quick Take

The test for an interlocutory mandatory injunction is no different from that for a prohibitory injunction, though the mandatory character of the relief may tilt the balance of convenience against the applicant. On any interlocutory injunction application, the court must assess the strength of the applicant's case — it is not sufficient merely to find a serious question to be tried and then decline to evaluate the strength of the case. Urgency and untested evidence do not relieve the court of this obligation; the court must do the best it can with the material available.