Case: Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; (1968) 118 CLR 618
Outcome: followed
These remarks of Mason ACJ which were approved by Gleeson CJ echo the observations made by the High Court in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; (1968) 118 CLR 618 at 622 623. 16 In Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46 ; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [65] (pp 81 82), when referring to the well-known passage in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; 118 CLR 618 at 622 623, Gummow and Hayne JJ said: By using the phrase "prima facie case", their Honours did not mean that the plaintiff must show that it is more probable than not that at trial the plaintiff will succeed; it is sufficient that the plaintiff show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial. That this was the sense in which the Court was referring to the notion of a prima facie case is apparent from an observation to that effect made by Kitto J in the course of argument [(1968) [1968] HCA 1 ; 118 CLR 618 at 620]. With reference to the first inquiry, the Court continued, in a statement of central importance for this appeal [1968] HCA 1 ; [(1968) 118 CLR 618 at 622]: "How strong the probability needs to be depends, no doubt, upon the nature of the rights [the plaintiff] asserts and the practical consequences likely to flow from the order he seeks." 17 At [70] to [72] (pp 83 and 84), their Honours went on to explain the similarities and differences between the test expounded in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1 ; 118 CLR 618 and the test articulated in American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] UKHL 1 ; [1975] AC 396 as follows: 70 When Beecham and American Cyanamid are read with an understanding of the issues for determination and an appreciation of the similarity in outcome, much of the assumed disparity in principle between them loses its force. There is then no objection to the use of the phrase "serious question" if it is understood as conveying the notion that the seriousness of the question, like the strength of the probability referred to in Beecham , depends upon the considerations emphasised in Beecham . 71 However, a difference between this Court in Beecham and the House of Lords in American Cyanamid lies in the apparent statement by Lord Diplock that, provided the court is satisfied that the plaintiff's claim is not frivolous or vexatious, then there will be a serious question to be tried and this will be sufficient. The critical statement by his Lordship is "[t]he court no doubt must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious; in other words, that there is a serious question to be tried" [1975] UKHL 1 ; [[1975] AC 396 at 407]. That was followed by a proposition which appears to reverse matters of onus [1975] UKHL 1 ; [[1975] AC 396 at 408]: So unless the material available to the court at the hearing of the application for an interlocutory injunction fails to disclose that the plaintiff has any real prospect of succeeding in his claim for a permanent injunction at the trial, the court should go on to consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting or refusing the interlocutory relief that is sought. (Emphasis added.) Those statements do not accord with the doctrine in this Court as established by Beecham and should not be followed. They obscure the governing consideration that the requisite strength of the probability of ultimate success depends upon the nature of the rights asserted and the practical consequences likely to flow from the interlocutory order sought. 72 The second of these matters, the reference to practical consequences, is illustrated by the particular considerations which arise where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction in effect would dispose of the action finally in favour of whichever party succeeded on that application [See the judgment of McLelland J in Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533 at 535-536 and the article by Sofronoff, " Interlocutory Injunctions Having Final Effect ", Australian Law Journal, vol 61 (1987) 341.95]. The first consideration mentioned in Beecham , the nature of the rights asserted by the plaintiff, redirects attention to the present appeal.