Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
StarTrack Express Pty Ltd v TMA Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCAFC 200 Appeal from: StarTrack Express Pty Ltd v TMA Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1271
File number(s): VID 925 of 2023
Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN, STEWART AND BUTTON JJ
Date of judgment: 30 November 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 15 December 2023
Catchwords: INJUNCTIONS – application for interlocutory injunction – where application refused by primary judge – whether prime facie case of contraventions of ss 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law and for tort of passing off – whether balance of convenience favoured grant of interlocutory injunction – appeal allowed
Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2, ss 18, 29
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 640 Bullock v Federated Furnishing Trades Society of Australia (No 1) (1985) 5 FCR 464 GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd [2013] FCAFC 102; (2013) 305 ALR 363 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc (2011) 217 FCR 238 Shercliff v Engadine Acceptance Corporation Pty Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 729 StarTrack Express Pty Ltd v TMA Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1271 Verrochi v Direct Chemist Outlet Pty Ltd (2016) 247 FCR 570 Warner-Lambert Co LLC v Apotex Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 59: (2014) 311 ALR 632
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate