The WA Court of Appeal continued injunctive relief restraining respondents from moving blueberry plant material pending an urgent appeal from the primary judge's refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief. The Court held that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without the injunction given cogent evidence of prior removal of material and the absence of any undertaking from the respondents, that at least one ground of appeal (that the primary judge mischaracterised the appellants' case as asserting entitlement to all blueberry material rather than a subset) had reasonable prospects of success, and that the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the restraint particularly given the short duration until the urgent appeal hearing. [name withheld] additionally identified two distinct bases for potential proprietary relief — tracing partnership property into new varieties, and constructive trust arising from breach of fiduciary duties — which the primary judge may have insufficiently considered.
The full text is available to signed-in members.