AAP Telecommunications Pty Ltd v Telstra Corp Ltd [1997] FCA 631

CATCHWORDS INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION - serious question to be tried - no question that representations were made - relevance of pattern of recurring conduct - whether truth of some facts precludes representations being misleading - balance of convenience - likelihood of unquantifiable damage to one party TRADE PRACTICES - misleading and deceptive conduct - representations about intentions of competitor - representations about competitor's solvency - representations about current litigation between the parties Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52 Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Pty Ltd [1978] 140 CLR 216 World Series Cricket Pty Ltd v Parish [1977] 16 ALR 181 at 185ff Mogul Steamship Co v McGregor, Gow & Co [1889] 23 QB 598 at 615 AAP TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED NG 449 of 1997 EINFELD J SYDNEY 16 JULY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY) No.NG 449 of 1997 GENERAL DIVISION ) Between:AAP TELECOMMUNICATIONS PTY LIMITED Applicant And: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS Upon the applicant by its counsel undertaking that it will pay to any party adversely affected by the interlocutory injunction such compensation (if any) as the Court thinks just, in such manner as the Court directs, the Court orders that: 1. until further order the respondent, its board of directors, executives, officers and employees be restrained from making the following representations to the applicant's past and present customers, members of the public making enquiries or showing interest in the supply of telecommunications services, whether to recruit or attempt to recruit them and their custom to the respondent or otherwise, and to the media or other people or bodies in public or likely to come to public attention including in any advertising, promotional or sales material whether written or oral: (i) that the applicant is only interested in those parts of customers' bills which relate to telephone calls; (ii) that the applicant is not interested in the non-profitable rental component of customers' bills; (iii) that the applicant has a right to return a customer to the respondent because the applicant does not profit from the rental component of customer's bills; (iv) that the applicant has been using the respondent's facilities and not paying for such use;