A court may vary an undertaking given in lieu of an interlocutory injunction where the party who gave it establishes that the interests of justice require the variation to avoid unjust enforcement; a genuine dispute as to the scope of the undertaking is a qualifying circumstance, in addition to change of facts, change of law, mistake and fraud. The observations in Mulvany v Hive & Wellness Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSCA 122 do not establish a general principle that changed facts are the only basis for variation. Under s 91 of the IBAC Act, IBAC officers may inspect seized documents to assess relevance without first resolving irrelevance claims, and the Charter right to privacy does not materially alter this construction.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 19 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 19 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.