Federal Court of Australia

PlayWest Pty Ltd v Apple Inc [2026] FCA 1464

ORDERS

UPON THE EX PARTE APPLICATION of the applicants and UPON THE UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES of the applicants

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Until trial or further order, the respondents, whether by themselves, their servants or agents, be restrained from:

(a)    giving effect to the notice of termination given on 4 September 2026 (Notice) in respect of the Apple developer account through which the first applicant’s wagering application, styled PlayWest – Online Betting App (PlayWest App) was distributed, being the account identified in the first respondent’s records by Team ID 43WFU4XWNS (the Developer Account);

(b)    terminating or suspending the Developer Account, the registration as an Apple Developer effected in connection with it, the membership of the Developer Account in the Apple Developer Program, or either of the Apple Developer Agreement (Developer Agreement) and the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (Licence Agreement) so far as they apply to the Developer Account, on the grounds asserted in that notice or on grounds substantially the same;

(c)    suspending, withdrawing or disabling the use of the Apple Pay APIs in connection with the first applicant’s wagering application;

(d)    doing any act which prevents or impairs the availability of the PlayWest App for download by end users in Australia, or its functioning for end users who have installed it, in each case as it was immediately before 4 September 2026; and

(i)    exercising, in respect of the Developer Account, any rights conferred on the respondents by:

(ii)    section 9 of the Developer Agreement in so far as it permits the first respondent to modify that agreement, at any time;

(iii)    section 10 of the Developer Agreement in so far as it permits the first respondent to terminate or suspend the applicants as Apple Developer at any time in its sole discretion and to deny reapplication at any time in its sole discretion;

(iv)    section 2.8 of the Licence Agreement, in so far as it permits the first respondent to change, suspend, deprecate, deny, limit or disable the applicants’ access to the Apple Services, or any part of them, at any time and without notice, including by revoking entitlements or by changing any APIs that enable access to them, to revoke access to the Apple Services and to cancel them at any time in its sole discretion;

(v)    section 5.4 of the Licence Agreement, in so far as it permits the first respondent to revoke any Apple Certificate at any time in its sole discretion where it has reason to believe that the first applicant has breached a term of that agreement, or where it has reason to believe that revocation is prudent or necessary, but not so far as it permits revocation on the grounds identified in paragraphs (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of that section;

(vi)    the final paragraph of section 11.2 of the Licence Agreement, in so far as it permits the first respondent to terminate the Licence Agreement for no reason, on giving 30 days notice and so far as it permits the first respondent to terminate that agreement, or to suspend the rights to use the Apple software or services, for a failure to accept new Program Requirements or new terms of the Licence Agreement;

(vii)    section 12 of the Licence Agreement, in so far as it permits the first respondent to change, suspend, remove, impose limits on or disable access to any Services, or any part of them, at any time and without notice; and

(viii)    section 6.3 of Schedule 1 to the Licence Agreement, in so far as it permits the first respondent to cease marketing, offering and allowing download of the PlayWest App at any time, with or without cause, on notice of termination.

2.    Each of the respondents forthwith do all things necessary within their respective power to restore and maintain until 5.00 pm AWST on 24 September 2026:

(a)    the registration of the first applicant, alternatively the second applicant, as an Apple Developer effected in connection with the Developer Account;

(b)    the first applicant’s membership of the Developer Account in the Apple Developer Program, including access to the Developer Account and unfettered access to App Store Connect;

(c)    the availability of the PlayWest App for download by end users located in Australia through the App Store, in the form in which it was available immediately before 4 September 2026; and

(d)    the use of the Apple Pay APIs in connection with that application.

3.    Pursuant to rule 10.44 and 10.45 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), the applicants have leave to serve on the first respondent outside Australia its interlocutory application dated 14 September 2026, the affidavit of Ms Alice Clarke Hartman dated 14 September 2026 and these orders by:

(a)    sending them by international pre-paid registered post, with acknowledgment of receipt, addressed to:

(i)    Apple Inc, Developer Relations Legal, One Apple Park Way, 37-2ISM, Cupertino, California 95014, United States of America; and

(ii)    the registered agent of Apple Inc in the State of California, at the address recorded for that agent with the Secretary of State of California,

such service being in accordance with Article 10(a) of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters opened for signature at The Hague on 15 November 1965;

(b)    personal service in accordance with the law of the State of California, United States of America.

4.    Upon request by the first respondent or any legal representative of the first respondent made to the solicitors for the applicants in these proceedings, the solicitors for the applicants shall provide by email copies of all documents filed by the applicants in these proceedings.

5.    The further hearing of the applicant’s interlocutory application be adjourned until 9.15 am AWST on 24 September 2026.

6.    There be liberty to the respondents to apply to vary or discharge the orders on one business day’s notice to the applicants.

7.    The costs of and incidental to the application for these orders are reserved.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLVIN J:

1    PlayWest Pty Ltd conducts an on-line gambling business. It claims that most of those who place wagers with PlayWest do so through an application on an iOS device. The iOS system used on such devices was created and developed under the brand name Apple. To establish and conduct a business that receives payments through applications on iOS devices, it is necessary to enter into agreements to use software that interfaces with Apple systems and transfers information digitally as part of an application. Those agreements cover the process of developing an application as well as conferring licences to use Apple software and technology.

2    The gambling business of PlayWest started at the end of March 2024 when the PlayWest application (App) became available for download to iOS and android devices. Its accounts show that in each of the 2025 and 2026 financial years its gross profit from trading was more than $800,000. The App is available for download through Apple's Australian electronic storefront (Australian App Store). It is alleged that the storefront is operated by Apple Inc (a United States entity) or Apple Pty Limited (an Australian entity) (Apple PL) as agent for Apple Inc.

3    PlayWest alleges that, on 4 September 2026, Apple Inc or Apple PL as agent for Apple Inc took immediate steps to (a) remove the App from the Australian App Store; and (b) suspend the use by PlayWest of the software interfaces that allow for payments to be made using software known as Apple Pay. PlayWest says that since then it has been unable to conduct that part of its business that involves the use by wagerers of iOS devices. It says that wagers placed using iOS devices account for just under 90% of its revenue. It also says that significant consequences for its business flow from the removal of the App at a time when the Spring Racing Carnival in Australia is imminent. PlayWest also has concerns, in effect, that customers who are unable to use the App will soon switch their market allegiance or interest to other bookmakers.

4    PlayWest and its director Ms Alice Hartman have commenced proceedings in this Court against Apple Inc and Apple PL. Although PlayWest and Ms Hartman both allege that PlayWest was the party to the relevant agreements concerning the App, they claim in the alternative that Ms Hartman was the registered Apple developer and the party to an agreement with Apple Inc, styled as Apple Developer Agreement. They say the Developer Agreement is a contractual instrument that governs the terms of an Apple Developer Account which is the means through which the App has been developed, distributed and managed. In addition, they allege that PlayWest and Apple Inc are parties to an agreement styled Apple Developer Program License Agreement.

The termination notice

5    Ms Hartman says that on 4 September 2026 at 11:53pm (AWST), she received an email from Apple Inc with the subject line 'Notice of Termination'. Relevantly for present purposes, it said:

This letter serves as notice of termination of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement (the 'ADP Agreement') and the Apple Developer Agreement (the 'Developer Agreement') between you and Apple effective immediately.

Pursuant to Section 3.2(f) of the ADP Agreement, you agreed that you would not 'commit any act intended to interfere with any of the Apple Software or Services, the intent of this Agreement, or Apple’s business practices including, but not limited to, taking actions that may hinder the performance or intended use of the App Store, Custom App Distribution, TestFlight, Xcode Cloud, Ad Hoc distribution, or the Program…' Apple has good reason to believe that you violated this Section due to documented indications of fraudulent conduct associated with your account.

Apple is exercising its right to terminate your status as an Apple developer pursuant to the Apple Developer Agreement and is terminating you under the ADP Agreement for dishonest and fraudulent acts relating to that agreement. We would like to remind you of your obligations with regard to all software and other confidential information that you obtained from Apple as an Apple developer and under the ADP Agreement. You must promptly cease all use of and destroy such materials and comply with all the other termination obligations set forth in Section 11.3 of the ADP Agreement and Section 10 of the Apple Developer Agreement.

…

This letter is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts regarding this matter, and nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies Apple may have, all of which are hereby reserved. Finally, please note that we will deny your reapplication to the Apple Developer Program for at least a year considering the nature of your acts. If you want to file an official complaint pursuant to an applicable Platform Regulation in your country or region you may Contact Us.

6    Notwithstanding the seriousness of the alleged breach and despite claiming that the 'indications of fraudulent conduct' associated with PlayWest's account were 'documented', the notice given provided no meaningful detail as to the basis for the termination.

7    PlayWest and Ms Hartman allege that on 4 September 2026, the following steps were taken:

(1)    the registration as an Apple Developer that was used to develop, distribute and manage the App was terminated;

(2)    the Apple Developer Account used by PlayWest was cancelled or disabled;

(3)    the App was removed from the Australian App Store; and

(4)    the use of Apple Pay functionality was suspended.

8    They commenced proceedings in this Court against Apple Inc and Apple PL (Apple Parties). They sought injunctive relief against the Apple Parties restraining those entities from giving effect to the notice of termination and, in substance, from exercising other rights under the Developer Agreement and the Licence Agreement. They also sought injunctive relief in effect requiring the Apple Parties to do all things within their power as may be necessary to restore PlayWest's status so that the App may be accessed and used to place wagers. They also sought orders requiring the Apple Parties to reinstate PlayWest's full access to its Apple Developer Account.

9    In addition to injunctive relief, PlayWest and Ms Hartman also sought orders as to the manner of service of the proceedings on Apple Inc.

10    The applications for injunctive relief and orders as to service were returned before me as the duty judge. At the hearing counsel appeared for Apple PL but there was no appearance for Apple Inc. Apple PL sought an adjournment until early the following week on the basis of the very short notice of the interlocutory application and advanced submissions in support of that position.

11    Counsel for PlayWest and Ms Hartman opposed the adjournment and sought to proceed on the basis that the application was ex parte and the usual obligations as to disclosure applied.

12    After hearing from counsel and on the basis of an undertaking as to damages proffered by PlayWest and Ms Hartman, I declined the oral adjournment application and I made injunctive orders on an ex parte basis. I also made orders as to service. These are those reasons for making those orders.

The material evidence in support of the interlocutory application

13    The interlocutory application was supported by an affidavit of Ms Hartman. The following findings, made for interlocutory purposes only, are based on that affidavit.

14    The App was designed, created and maintained by a subsidiary of BetMakers Technology Pty Ltd for PlayWest. It is Ms Hartman's understanding that BetMakers manages and controls the territorial availability of the App and that it has only been available in Australia.

15    The App is available for free and PlayWest does not offer any in-app purchase or subscription. The App enables betting accounts to be operated through deposits. PlayWest pays winnings and withdrawals directly to its wagering customers.

16    The termination notice was received on 4 September 20026, a Friday. It was not preceded by any notice of default. Ms Hartman is not aware of PlayWest having previously received any warning, rejection, App review issue or any non-compliance notice from Apple.

17    Upon receipt of the termination notice, the sole gateway to distributing the App to users of iOS devises was closed. As has been mentioned, it was the means by which about 90% of PlayWest's revenue was generated.

18    The day after receiving the notice of termination, Ms Hartman was informed that several other clients of BetMakers' betting platform had been informed that their Apple accounts had been terminated.

19    On the following Sunday, PlayWest submitted an appeal seeking reinstatement of its Apple Developer Account in accordance with the internal processes of Apple Inc. Confirmation was received by email that the appeal had been lodged.

20    On Friday 11 September 2026, solicitors acting for PlayWest sent a letter by email to Apple Inc outlining the claims it makes in these proceedings. The letter sought particulars of acts that were said to have triggered the decision to terminate the Agreements. It also asked for records to be preserved. It described the harm being caused to PlayWest in the following terms:

Distribution through the Australian App Store accounts for the overwhelming majority of PlayWest's customer acquisition. Since 4 September 2026 that channel has been closed to it. Existing users cannot update the App, and, with the suspension of the Apple Pay APIs, cannot deposit funds through Apple Pay. The harm is therefore not confined to the acquisition of new customers: it reaches customers PlayWest already has. The Spring Racing Carnival, the peak trading period in Australian wagering, is imminent, and PlayWest has committed substantial and largely irrecoverable expenditure directed to acquiring customers through the very channel from which it has been excluded. Continued exclusion threatens the continued viability of its business.

21    It drew attention to provisions in the Agreements that purported to cap the liability of Apple Inc to fifty United States dollars. As to that cap, the letter said:

We note that Apple’s own agreements purport to cap its total liability at fifty United States dollars and to exclude any obligation to compensate on termination. Apple cannot at once rely on those provisions and contend that damages are an adequate remedy for what it has done.

22    The letter sought reinstatement by the following Monday, 14 September 2026 of PlayWest to the position it had been in prior to the termination. Alternatively, it proposed the terms of undertakings. It foreshadowed an application to this Court for urgent interlocutory relief.

23    On the same day, PlayWest's solicitors sent a letter to BetMakers seeking information and the preservation of documents. PlayWest is not aware of any reason associated with its dealings with BetMakers that may provide a basis for the notice of termination.

24    No response was received from Apple Inc and on 14 September 2026 proceedings were commenced in this Court by PlayWest and MsHartman. They also filed the interlocutory application and detailed written submissions in support of that application.

25    The interlocutory application was made returnable on 17 September 2026.

26    Since the notice of termination, those people who have the App installed are able to open the App and use some of its functionality but they are unable to fund their accounts through the use of Apple Pay. There has been an immediate and significant downward effect upon the level of customer sign-ups and active wagering by PlayWest betting customers.

27    PlayWest has made significant investment in advertising, salaries and consulting fees in preparation for the Spring Racing Carnival. If PlayWest's exclusion from the Apple Developer Account (and the exclusion of the availability of its App from the Australian App Store) was to continue to the end of the Spring Racing Carnival then Ms Hartman estimates the loss to PlayWest to be $350,000 to $600,000. There would also be ongoing losses thereafter. Given the scale of the business of PlayWest it can be seen that losses of that order would likely result in insolvency for the business (in the absence of the provision of further capital).

28    Ms Hartman is very concerned that if PlayWest's exclusion from the Apple Developer Account continues, PlayWest will not remain financially viable.

29    According to Ms Harman, neither PlayWest nor Ms Hartman has committed any act or engaged in any conduct that might meet the description of fraud used in the termination notice.

30    A traffic anomaly on 28 August 2026 was disclosed by PlayWest to the Court. It disclosed steps that were taken to exclude South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory from 'the Meta iOS app-instal campaign's geographic targeting'. On that date there was a high level of unique devices reaching the PlayWest product page with only two instals. Ms Hartman believes that the 'link clicks' were a result of an advertising campaign by PlayWest. These clicks did not generate revenue for PlayWest or additional cost to PlayWest.

31    Neither Apple Inc nor Apple PL has identified the conduct that is relied upon as the basis for the termination.

The causes of action

32    PlayWest and Ms Hartman advance the following causes of action against Apple Inc and Apple PL (together, Apple Parties):

(1)    the Apple Parties have acted in breach of the Developer Agreement and the License Agreement (together, Agreements);

(2)    Alternatively, if the Agreements allowed for termination by the notice and the taking of the steps listed above then provisions in the Agreements that may be the source of that contractual authority were void by the application of s 23(1) of the Australian Consumer Law as unfair contract terms and their inclusion was a contravention of s 23(2C) of the Australian Consumer Law;

(3)    Alternatively, if the Agreements allowed for termination by the notice and the relevant provisions were not unfair contract terms then reliance upon them to terminate the Agreements and take the steps listed above without identifying the conduct alleged was unconscionable conduct for the purposes of s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law and statutory remedies are available to redress the harm.

33    There are other alternatives advanced as well as aspects of the causes of action that would be affected by Ms Hartman being the party to the Developer Agreement. However, the above summary is sufficient for present purposes.

Relevant principles as to grant of interlocutory injunctive relief

34    The principles to be applied in considering whether to grant an interlocutory injunction were explained in Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc. [2011] FCAFC 156; (2011) 217 FCR 238 at [52]-[74] (Dowsett, Foster and Yates JJ).

35    More recently, in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v MZAPC [2025] HCA 5, Gageler CJ, Gordon, Gleeson and Jagot JJ recorded the following propositions concerning the power to grant interlocutory injunctions (at [23]):

(1)    'the primary purpose of an interlocutory injunction remains "to keep matters in status quo until the rights of the parties can be determined at the hearing of the suit"';

(2)    'The condition precedent remains that "a plaintiff seeking an interlocutory injunction must be able to show sufficient colour of right to the final relief, in aid of which interlocutory relief is sought", the usual description of the sufficiency of that colour of right being the establishment of a serious question to be tried or a prima facie case'.

36    An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must also demonstrate that the balance of convenience and justice favours the grant of an injunction. In Samsung, it was said at [65]-[66] that the resolution of that question requires the Court to exercise a discretion and:

In exercising that discretion, the Court is required to assess and compare the prejudice and hardship likely to be suffered by the defendant, third persons and the public generally if an injunction is granted, with that which is likely to be suffered by the plaintiff if no injunction is granted. In determining this question, the Court must make an assessment of the likelihood that the final relief (if granted) will adequately compensate the plaintiff for the continuing breaches which will have occurred between the date of the interlocutory hearing and the date when final relief might be expected to be granted.

37    Part of that inquiry involves considering whether damages will be an adequate remedy, that is to say will the applicant for injunctive relief be in as good a position if no injunction was granted and they were entitled to damages if successful at trial (sometimes expressed as a separate requirement: see Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; (2006) 227 CLR 57 at [19] (Gleeson CJ and Crennan J). It is also necessary, in an appropriate case, to weigh the strength of the applicant's case as part of the balancing process: Samsung at [67].

38    As to instances where interlocutory injunctions are sought that are expressed in mandatory terms, the principles were summarised by Jackson J in Frigger v Trenfield [2019] FCA 1746 at [6], points (8) to (10) in the following terms (references to authorities omitted):

Mandatory interlocutory injunctions are uncommon, partly because the usual purpose of the interlocutory injunction is to preserve the status quo, which is inapplicable to mandatory injunctions. Mandatory injunctions require a party to take some positive step or to undo what has been done in the past.

The features which justify describing an injunction as mandatory will usually also have the consequence of creating a greater risk of injustice if it is granted rather than withheld at the interlocutory stage, unless the court feels a high degree of assurance that the applicant would be able to establish the relevant right at a trial.

However these matters concerning characteristics of mandatory injunctions are best understood as guidelines rather than independent principles…Ultimately the question is as to the balance of the risk of injustice. In considering that balance the court must take into account the nature and consequences of the particular injunction sought.

39    Mandatory injunctions are more likely to be appropriate where they seek to reinstate a position that existed immediately prior to the application rather than to require a respondent to embark on a new course of conduct: Businessworld Computers Pty Ltd v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1988) 82 ALR 499 at 504.

A serious question to be tried

40    On the evidence, the Apple Parties have (or one of them has) given notice of termination and immediately implemented that notice on the basis of alleged fraud which has not been identified and where PlayWest knows of no basis for such a claim. That step was taken without warning. The Apple Parties have been given an opportunity to provide some indication of the basis for the pre-emptory action, including by invoking their own appeal process. No response has been received. The termination occurred in circumstances where it must have been evident that there would be immediate consequences for PlayWest to the extent that its business depended upon the App. Having regard to the nature of the App, such a consequence was likely. The inequality in bargaining positions as between PlayWest and the Apple Parties is obvious and extreme, as is the difference between the relative consequences for their businesses.

41    In the above circumstances, there is an arguable case that there was no basis to terminate, alternatively that the terms that might permit such a course were unfair in the sense used in the Australian Consumer Law or unconscionable for the purposes of the statutory provisions relied upon by PlayWest. There was also an arguable basis for the application of the statutory provisions to PlayWest.

42    For those reasons, I was satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried as to whether the Developer Agreement and the Licence Agreement had been lawfully terminated and otherwise as to whether PlayWest was entitled to statutory relief from any such termination.

The balance of convenience

43    The immediate consequence of the sudden actions by the Apple Parties was that the source of 90% of the revenue of PlayWest (through use of the App to place wagers) was foreclosed. Further, the opportunity for new customers to download the App had been brought to an immediate end. This occurred at a time when PlayWest had incurred considerable expenditure seeking to promote the App in the lead up to the Spring Racing Carnival, which was imminent.

44    It may be expected to be difficult to measure the nature and extent of any loss that might be suffered if PlayWest was subsequently successful in having the App reinstated. This was because it would not be easy to assess the likely success of recent advertising. Also, it would be difficult to assess the extent to which existing customers may be lost during the intervening period without them being likely to return to wagering using the App (having established allegiances with other gambling platforms).

45    Whereas the consequences for PlayWest were immediate and significant, it was not possible to identify any possible harm to the Apple Parties if they were required to reinstate matters to the way they had been before the termination. On the evidence, no adverse consequence for the Apple Parties could be identified. PlayWest had been in business for some two years with an active Apple Developer Account and access to the Australian App Store. There was no evidence of any history of concern arising as between the Apple Parties and PlayWest as to their dealings. On the evidence, PlayWest was not in default of any financial obligations to the Apple Parties. PlayWest's customers had been using Apple Pay for wagering. On the evidence, taking account of PlayWest's obligations to disclose all known relevant circumstances to the Court, there was no basis for any concern as to possible adverse consequences for the Apple Parties. The interlocutory injunction sought would involve reinstating a position that had been in place for some time. It would not require the Apple Parties to embark on a new course of dealing with PlayWest.

46    By the time of the injunction hearing, the interruption to the business of PlayWest had continued for almost two weeks. It was open to conclude that each day when the App was not able to be used by those who had downloaded it and could not be downloaded from the Australian App Store exposed PlayWest to the potential for its customers to move to other betting platforms with a real risk that they would not return. The extent of that consequence would be difficult to measure if PlayWest succeeded in its claims. On the evidence, if that state of affairs continued then there was the potential for the financial viability of PlayWest to be called into question. In short, the consequences of the notice of termination and its implementation were fundamental to PlayWest.

47    As has been mentioned, the Licence Agreement includes a provision that would cap liability at US$50. If enforceable, the provision would mean that available damages would be limited to an extent that would mean that PlayWest would not be compensated for the loss that it claims to be suffering.

48    The Apple Parties maintain that PlayWest cannot seek to reinstate the App for at least 12 months. Although the Licence Agreement has a separate provision allowing for termination on 30 days' notice, PlayWest challenges the enforceability of that provision as part of its case.

49    Further, orders could be made on a short term basis with an opportunity for the Apple Parties to oppose any continuation of injunctive orders with the consequence that it could immediately take the same steps to terminate if the Apple Parties established a basis upon which the orders requiring reinstatement should not be continued.

Adjournment refused and injunctions granted

50    I was not persuaded that it was appropriate to defer further consideration as to whether to grant an injunction until the Apple Parties might be able to respond. Any such adjournment would have to be for at least a week if it was to be meaningful. It would result in a further 7 days when the termination would be carried into effect. PlayWest proceeded on an ex parte basis and accepted that it had the associated responsibilities to make disclosure. Having regard to the immediate and fundamental consequences for the PlayWest business and the lack of any evidence of an adverse consequence for the Apple Parties of being required to take those steps that could be taken to reinstate the position, I declined to adjourn the application.

51    As to the injunctive relief, the arguable merits of the claim had been established. There was no known basis upon which there could be a termination for fraud. The Apple Parties had not provided any details to support the termination. The balance of convenience strongly favoured the grant of relief. The usual undertaking as to damages was provided.

52    Taking account of the apparent strength of the claim and the matters relevant to the balance of convenience, I was persuaded that it was appropriate for relief of the kind sought to be granted, including relief requiring the Apple Parties to do all things within their respective power to restore and maintain matters as they had previously been, at least until a date when the Apple Parties could take steps to inform the Court as to any further matters that might bear upon whether those orders should continue. The prospect of unfairness to PlayWest if an injunction was refused and PlayWest succeeded was significant. On the other hand, the prospect of unfairness to the Apple Parties if an injunction was granted and the Apple Parties succeeded appeared to be negligible. I was also satisfied that there was a sufficient basis to grant the injunctive relief sought on an urgent interim basis.

Orders as to service

53    The proceedings against Apple Inc were commenced on the basis that service of the originating application could be effected without leave as provided for by r 10.42 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) applied. Service was to be effected in accordance with the Hague Convention. However, orders were sought, nunc pro tunc, for leave to serve other documents (including the interlocutory application and the affidavit of Ms Hartman). Leave is required to serve those documents: see r 10.44. One difficulty that arose in relation to the grant of a form of retrospective leave to serve those documents was that the notification that had been provided to Apple Inc for the purposes of service referred to leave having been obtained, which could not have been the case as to steps taken before the interlocutory hearing.

54    In the result, I was not persuaded that it was necessary or appropriate for leave to be given nunc pro tunc to serve other documents on Apple Inc, particularly as the application, in the result, was heard ex parte as to Apple Inc.

55    I determined that leave should be given to serve the interlocutory application and the affidavit of Ms Hartman. However, as to the other documents, I determined that the practical course was for an order to be made for copies to be provided by email of all documents filed by the applicants in the proceedings upon request by Apple Inc to the solicitors for PlayWest and Ms Hartman.

Adjourned hearing

56    For the above reasons, I made orders substantially in the terms sought by PlayWest and Ms Hartman. I did so on the basis that there would be an adjourned hearing of the interlocutory application on 24 September 2026. In the result, the parties agreed that there should be orders vacating that hearing and that the further hearing take place after 22 October 2026. They did not seek any other orders concerning the injunctive relief that had been granted. On that basis, orders were made vacating the adjourned hearing.

Associate:

Dated:    6 October 2026