Where the subject matter of an interlocutory injunction is a wasting asset, the court must consider the effect of depreciation on both sides of the balance of convenience — not only on the adequacy of the applicant's undertaking as to damages, but also on the value of the respondent's asserted security interest. A respondent's security interest in a rapidly depreciating asset may be worth little or nothing by the time of trial, which neutralises the argument that the applicant's undertaking is inadequate because the asset is depreciating. The case also signals that cryptocurrency mining businesses that bail equipment to third parties may have good arguments that they fall within the PPS lease exceptions in s 13(2)(b) and s 13(3) of the PPSA.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.