Suppression of material facts defeats discretionary injunction relief where a commercial marketing arrangement is not specifically enforceable.

A plaintiff seeking an ad interim injunction must make full and frank disclosure; suppression of material communications concerning termination of the exclusive marketing arrangement was sufficient to deny discretionary relief. The Court also noted that the underlying commercial agreement was not shown to be specifically enforceable in the manner sought. On balance, restraint on the defendants would have caused serious business prejudice, while any loss to the plaintiff could be addressed in damages. The ex parte injunction was therefore vacated and the injunction application rejected, leaving the contractual dispute to be tried on its merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to continue an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from marketing and selling the disputed products, and whether suppression of material facts and the nature of the underlying agreement disentitled the plaintiff to discretionary relief.

Analysis: The pleadings and correspondence showed that the plaintiff had not disclosed material communications indicating termination of the exclusive marketing arrangements. A litigant seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with full and frank disclosure, and suppression of material facts is by itself sufficient to deny discretionary injunction. The dispute over breach of contract was one for trial, but at the interlocutory stage the Court found that the plaintiff had concealed documents that would have affected the grant of ex parte relief. The Court also held that the agreement, being in the nature of a commercial arrangement for exclusive marketing, could not be specifically enforced in the manner sought, and that the balance of convenience lay with the defendants because a restraint on them would seriously prejudice their business while the plaintiff could be compensated in damages if warranted.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to injunction. The defendants' application for vacating the ex parte order was allowed and the plaintiff's injunction application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The interim restraint was lifted and the suit proceeded without the protective injunction, leaving the parties to establish their contractual claims at trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Suppression of material facts by a party seeking equitable relief is sufficient to refuse a discretionary injunction, especially where the underlying commercial arrangement is not shown to be specifically enforceable and the balance of convenience is against restraint.

---