Background
Paramount Liquor, a liquor wholesaler conducting most of its sales online, used a website provided by Adobe under a three-year contract. Paramount did not exercise its option to renew, and the contract expired on 17 September 2026, although Adobe agreed temporarily not to act on the expiry. Paramount commenced proceedings on 23 September seeking an urgent interlocutory injunction preventing Adobe from disrupting access to the website or its contractual services.
In the underlying proceeding, Paramount alleged that Adobe had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct during pre-contractual negotiations. It claimed Adobe represented that its platform could accommodate Paramount’s complex pricing requirements largely through standard functionality and could process pricing updates far more quickly than Paramount’s existing system. Paramount alleged that the platform did not perform as represented, requiring it to build a custom website at substantial expense.
By the hearing, Paramount’s replacement website—launched on 18 September—was operational and stable. Paramount therefore narrowed its request to an additional 21 days of Adobe services so it could continue live testing and guard against performance problems with the replacement site.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Anderson dismissed the interlocutory application. The Court found that Paramount had established a serious question to be tried concerning whether Adobe’s pre-contractual representations contravened section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law. Adobe had not substantially challenged Paramount’s evidence about those negotiations at the interlocutory stage.
That prima facie case did not justify the requested injunction. The proposed order was, in substance, a mandatory injunction compelling Adobe to continue supplying services after the contract had expired. It was unnecessary to preserve the subject matter of the misleading-conduct proceeding or the utility of any final relief, because ending Adobe’s services would not prevent the Court from deciding Paramount’s claim.
The balance of convenience also weighed against relief. Paramount already had an operational replacement website, any losses during the requested 21-day period appeared capable of calculation in damages, and the extension was merely “belt and braces” protection. Paramount had contributed to its predicament by beginning development of the replacement site only shortly before expiry and had delayed seeking an injunction until after the contract expired. The Court ordered Paramount to pay Adobe’s costs of the application.
Key Takeaways
- A serious question to be tried is necessary but does not alone establish entitlement to an interlocutory injunction.
- An order compelling continued performance after contractual expiry may be treated as a mandatory injunction and, where it supplies the practical final relief sought, will receive particularly close scrutiny.
- A stable replacement system, quantifiable losses, self-induced urgency, and delay in seeking relief can weigh strongly against an injunction.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limits of interlocutory relief in technology-contract disputes. Even a viable misleading-conduct claim will not support an order extending expired services unless the order genuinely protects the controversy, the Court’s processes, or the utility of final relief.
Businesses planning a platform migration should not assume that litigation will secure temporary continuity from an outgoing provider. Courts may give substantial weight to renewal options, migration planning, available alternatives, and how promptly the applicant sought protection.