Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Sensis Pty Ltd v Bivami Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1465 Citation: Sensis Pty Ltd v Bivami Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 1465
Parties: SENSIS PTY LTD ACN 007 423 912 and UNIVERSAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD ACN 000 087 132 v BIVAMI PTY LTD ACN 003 020 166, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED ACN 007 457 141 and AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR TRUSTEES LIMITED AS CUSTODIAN FOR HYPERION PROPERTIES SYNDICATES LIMITED; AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR TRUSTEES LIMITED AS CUSTODIAN FOR HYPERION PROPERTIES SYNDICATES LIMITED; UNIVERSAL PUBLISHERS PTY LTD ACN 000 087 132
File number: NSD 1803 of 2012
Judge: GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment: 21 December 2012
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for mandatory interlocutory injunction – whether damages an adequate remedy – whether relief sought prematurely
Cases cited: Castlemaine Tooheys Limited v South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148 Ringtail Asia Pacific Pty Limited v FTI Technology, LLC [2010] FCA 314
Date of hearing: 18 December 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Applicants: Mr P R Whitford SC with Ms F T Roughley
Solicitor for the Applicants: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr T Maltz
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Swaab Attorneys
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr J M Harris
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Ms F Booth
Counsel for the Third Respondent: Mr C Newlinds SC with Mr M Izzo
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