1Where a defendant's proffered undertakings would perpetuate market uncertainty by permitting both the plaintiff and a competitor entity to operate in the same market, the balance of convenience may favour a more comprehensive restraint order restoring the longer-term status quo, particularly where the final hearing is imminent.
2Loss of goodwill built over a long-standing exclusive distribution relationship may not be adequately compensable in damages, especially where the harm is difficult to prove and quantify and the remaining contractual term is short.
3Delay in seeking interlocutory relief is assessed not merely by reference to when the plaintiff first became aware of the defendant's stated intentions, but by reference to when the defendant took concrete steps to act on those intentions, and any prejudice caused by the delay.
