Astra Resources Plc v Full Exposure Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1061

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Astra Resources Plc v Full Exposure Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1061 Citation: Astra Resources Plc v Full Exposure Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 1061

Parties: ASTRA RESOURCES PLC v FULL EXPOSURE PTY LTD

File number: SAD 239 of 2012

Judge: BESANKO J

Date of judgment: 3 October 2012

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for interlocutory injunction – where applicant claims respondent published statements on its website that are misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law – whether appropriate exercise of discretion to grant interlocutory injunction – where respondent non-trading company – whether respondent published statements "in trade or commerce" – whether applicant has established prima facie case – whether serious question to be tried – balance of convenience. Held: It is appropriate to grant an interlocutory injunction upon the applicant giving the usual undertaking as to damages.

Legislation: Australian Consumer Law s 18 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s 52

Cases cited: Advanced Hair Studio Pty Ltd and Anor v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 1, cited Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57, cited Barker v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] FCA 942, cited Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618, cited Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v The State of South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148, cited Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594, cited Crossman v Taylor (No 3) [2011] FCA 734, cited Fasold v Roberts (1997) 70 FCR 489, cited Houghton v Arms (2006) 225 CLR 553, cited Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1, cited Taylor v Crossman (No 2) (2012) 199 FCR 363 TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Ilvariy Pty Ltd (2008) 71 NSWLR 323, cited Tobacco Institute of Australia v Woodward (1993) 32 NSWLR 559, cited