Lindrum v T&P Lindrum Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 1644

1. The originating application includes the following claim for interlocutory relief:

An injunction to restrain [T&P], [its] parent, associates and related entities, contractors, consultants, finance brokers, mortgagees, corporate lenders or wealth creation entities/advisers/corporations, public relations and media personnel/advisers/corporations, employees and "alleged" 100 interrelated/interconnected corporations from using the LINDRUM BRAND and NAME in and about the promotion and development of a 30-level commercial tower [situated] at 26-30 Flinders Street, Melbourne.

1. Dr Lindrum has filed an interlocutory application dated 27 October 2025 headed "Interlocutory application to join parties to main application after relevant period". The document names Time & Place Development and Kapitol as respondents to the application (even though they are not parties to the proceeding) and seeks various forms of injunctive relief against T&P and them. In broad terms, the injunctive relief is directed to restraining T&P, Time & Place Development and Kapitol from using the LINDRUM name in connection with the development of the Property. The lawyers acting for T&P indicated in their written submissions that they had instructions to appear on behalf of Time & Place Development and Kapitol in relation to the application for interlocutory relief against them.
2. The interlocutory application does not seek an order that Time & Place Development and Kapitol be joined as respondents to the proceeding. However, it is apparent from both the heading to the interlocutory application and Dr Lindrum's affidavit material (referred to below) that she seeks such an order. I note at the outset that one of the difficulties with this application is that Dr Lindrum has not prepared a proposed pleading with claims against Time & Place Development and Kapitol.
3. Dr Lindrum relies on the following:

(a) affidavits that she swore on 1 September 2025, 28 October 2025 (in support of injunctive relief), 28 October 2025 (in support of joinder), 19 November 2025 (in reply to Mr O'Keefe's affidavit, referred to below) and 19 November 2025 (in reply to Ms O'Bryan's affidavit, referred to below); and

(b) a bundle of current company extracts obtained from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) (Exhibit A1).

(a) an affidavit of Christopher O'Keefe, a director of T&P, dated 14 November 2025;

(b) an affidavit of Amy O'Bryan, a solicitor employed by Actuate IP, the solicitors acting for T&P, dated 14 November 2025; and

(c) a current company extract from ASIC for Australian Super Developments Pty Ltd (exhibit R1).

1. Dr Lindrum commenced this proceeding by originating application filed on 30 September 2025. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the originating application seek relief in relation to certain trade marks. By those paragraphs, Dr Lindrum seeks orders that another proceeding in this Court be struck out and that certain trade marks be removed from the Register. The application for the relief sought in these paragraphs appears to be misconceived, but in any event these paragraphs can be put to one side for present purposes.
2. The relief sought by Dr Lindrum in [4]-[8] of the originating application is as follows:
   1. [T&P], its parent, associates and related entities ... refrain from using the LINDRUM BRAND and Name on or in connection with the commercial tower being [constructed] at 26-30 Flinders Street, Melbourne or in relation to any part or parcel thereof and in relation to any future projects in the absence of [Dr Lindrum's] [licence], authority or consent;
   2. Issue a statement of apology to the applicant for the [unauthorised] use of the LINDRUM BRAND and Name and a public statement in all recognized property publications notifying the general public that [T&P's] use of the LINDRUM BRAND and Name was an "[unauthorised] and improper use" and it will no longer be exploiting the LINDRUM BRAND and Name to entice investment into [its] development of the commercial tower and renaming the project on all social media platforms including those platforms within the exclusive domain of [T&P] and [its] associates;
   3. Change the name of [T&P] to delete the name "LINDRUM" and provide an undertaking to take whatever legal steps as are necessary to cause [its] associates to cease all use of the name "LINDRUM", including changing the names of special purpose vehicles that have been established to exploit the "LINDRUM BRAND" and Name.
   4. Provide [Dr Lindrum] with an undertaking from all parties that they will not use the "LINDRUM BRAND" or Name in the future in the absence of [Dr Lindrum's] [licence], authority or consent.
   5. Damages, costs and such other Orders as this Honourable Court sees fit.
3. The originating application does not seek relief under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) for trade mark infringement.
4. Dr Lindrum has filed a statement of claim (also headed "Concise statement") setting out her claims. The following is an outline of that document.
5. Dr Lindrum alleges that she is the managing director of a number of Lindrum companies and that she:

has invested time, energy and money in relation to the preservation and protection of the [LINDRUM] BRAND, Name and Heritage over the last 26 years and is the proprietor of long-term intellectual property rights and copyright and claims common law and equitable rights in and about the preservation and protection of the LINDRUM BRAND, Name and Heritage.

1. She also alleges that she is an entrepreneur who has been and continues to be involved in property development, including building and construction.
2. In [2] of the statement of claim, Dr Lindrum alleges that LINDRUM is a brand comprising:

six generations of National achievement which is indelibly marked in Australian history and linked to personality and which, if used in the absence of [licence], authority or consent will, unquestionably, lead to a real tangible danger of market confusion, threaten long-established "goodwill" and [Dr Lindrum's] substantive financial investment, in time, energy and money.

1. The statement of claim at [6]-[10] makes allegations relating to trade mark no. 750507 (the 507 Mark), which is for the word LINDRUM in class 42. By way of background and context I note that the 507 Mark is registered in the name of T&P. Dr Lindrum sought removal of the trade mark from the Register pursuant to s 92 of the Trade Marks Act and was successful before a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. T&P has appealed to this Court from the decision of the delegate (proceeding VID783/2025). The decision of the delegate was stayed by the delegate pending the determination of the appeal: see [58] of the delegate's decision. The appeal proceeding is in my docket and has not yet been heard. It is being case managed together with the present proceeding. Dr Lindrum's allegations at [6]-[10] of the statement of claim, which concern T&P's appeal in relation to the 507 Mark, can be put to one side for present purposes.
2. In [11] of the statement of claim, Dr Lindrum alleges that T&P "has no right [or] entitlement to use the LINDRUM BRAND" in relation to hotels or in any other way, "as no authority, [licence] or consent has been granted by LINDRUM to it".
3. At [12] of the statement of claim, Dr Lindrum refers to T&P and a number of its related companies (including MC Lindrum Pty Ltd, the ultimate holding company of which is said to be Regal Partners Ltd). Dr Lindrum contends that T&P and the related companies:

are engaging in "passing off" - wilfully unconscionable, deceptive, misleading, inherently dishonest and fraudulent conduct, colluding, as they are, "by design" and "with intent" to exploit the LINDRUM Brand and Name in the absence of [licence], authority or consent for financial gain contrary to the Competition and Consumer Act [2010 (Cth)] [and the] Corporations Act 2001 (Cth); a plan calculated to injure [Dr Lindrum's] business and goodwill which was foreseeable and has caused and is causing damage to [Dr Lindrum's] business plans.

Although the above paragraph does not expressly refer to the Australian Consumer Law, I will proceed on the basis that the above paragraph is intended to rely on the misleading or deceptive conduct provisions (such as s 18) of the Australian Consumer Law, which is contained in Sch 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act. It is unclear from the pleading which provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are relied upon. However, Dr Lindrum's affidavit material indicates that she relies on ss 181-184.

1. At [13], the statement of claim repeats the allegation that the ultimate holding company of MC Lindrum Pty Ltd is Regal Partners Ltd. That paragraph also includes allegations concerning the relationship between Regal Partners Ltd and Perpetual Ltd. It is then alleged in summary that:

(a) in 2013, the directors of Perpetual (which would seem to be a reference to Perpetual Trustee Ltd) became directors and trustees of the Walter Lindrum Scholarship Fund;

(b) in 2019, Perpetual acted as executor of the estate of Irene May Ellis;

(c) the estate comprises property including sporting memorabilia pertaining to the career and achievements of Walter Lindrum; and

(d) the memorabilia are currently held by the Australian Sports Museum, which is located at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), which is adjacent to the Property.

1. The statement of claim then refers to the ultimate holding company of T&P, mortgages on the Property, and allegations concerning the 507 Mark. In that section of the pleading, Dr Lindrum makes the following allegations:
   1. [T&P] has been engaging in wilfully unconscionable, deceptive and misleading conduct, including the granting of permission to individuals and/or corporations to establish special purpose vehicles using the LINDRUM BRAND and Name in the absence of [licence], authority or consent.
   2. The respondent is attempting to capitalize on the established trust, good name and reputation associated with "LINDRUM", the LINDRUM BRAND and Name.
2. At [19], the statement of claim makes allegations concerning trade mark no. 2391935. Although the statement of claim alleges that this is a registered trade mark, the evidence indicates that it is merely an application for a trade mark (the 935 Application). The application has been made by T&P and is for the word LINDRUM in class 36. In [19] of the statement of claim, in the context of outlining her grounds of opposition to T&P's application for a trade mark, Dr Lindrum pleads that she is the registered owner of trade mark no. 1831477 in class 37 (the 477 Mark). However, the statement of claim does not contain any allegation that T&P is infringing that trade mark or seek relief under the Trade Marks Act for infringement of that trade mark.
3. The statement of claim concludes with the following allegations:
   1. LINDRUM and LINDRUM are not deceptively similar, they are identical in all respects. [T&P] is [attempting] to trade off another person's goodwill which is damaging to good name and reputation.
   2. It is inconceivable, given the close proximity of the subject development site to the MCG - the Australian Sports Museum, being the site of the Walter Lindrum installation, the relationship between Perpetual and Regal Partners and the "timing" of the establishment of the [special purpose vehicle] [T&P] by [its] parent company, Time & Place Development Pty. Limited ... and [its] related management and consultancy entities, and [T&P's] subsequent attempt to exploit the LINDRUM BRAND & Name, by registration of trademarks and the unauthorised use of the LINDRUM BRAND & Name, to entice investment into the development of [its] commercial tower that [T&P's] actions and the actions of the directors of the other companies referred to herein is not collusion "in a scheme" of fraudulent design aimed at deriving financial gain at [Dr Lindrum's] expense and causing damage to [Dr Lindrum].
4. It is apparent from the above summary of the statement of claim that Dr Lindrum does not seek relief under the Trade Marks Act for trade mark infringement. Relevantly for present purposes, Dr Lindrum's claims are for:

(a) passing off;

(b) misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Australian Consumer Law; and

(c) contravention of ss 181-184 of the Corporations Act.

1. In its defence at [2], T&P admits that the word LINDRUM has been used as a brand in relation to businesses which have been operated at the Property. T&P contends that it does not require the licence, authority or consent of Dr Lindrum to use the word LINDRUM as a brand.
2. In its defence at [13], T&P states that the allegations in [20] and [21] of the statement of claim are made without any particulars identifying the specific conduct engaged in by T&P and do not disclose any cause of action. T&P then pleads at [14] of the defence:

In further response to the Originating Application (OA) and the SOC, [T&P]:

(a) says that it understands [Dr Lindrum] to allege that she is the owner of some goodwill and reputation in respect of the word LINDRUM by reason of the notoriety of one or more of her ancestors (paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOC), and that she considers [T&P's] use of the word LINDRUM to constitute passing off and contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (presumably, sections 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law) (paragraph 12 of the SOC);

(b) says that:

(i) it does not admit that [Dr Lindrum] has such goodwill or reputation, and further does not admit that [Dr Lindrum] has standing to bring proceedings for passing off in respect of alleged damage to the goodwill or reputation owned by any other person (e.g. any relative of [Dr Lindrum], or the estate of any ancestor of [Dr Lindrum]); and

(ii) further or in the alternative, it denies that [T&P's] use of the word LINDRUM in relation to the Property constitutes a misrepresentation, false or misleading representation, or conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive consumers;

(c) says that all allegations made in the SOC with respect to the Appeal Proceeding [i.e. proceeding VID783/2025 relating to the 507 Mark], [T&P's] Pending Application [i.e. the 935 Application], and people who are not a party to this proceeding, are liable to be struck out pursuant to rule 16.21(1)(b), (d) and/or (e) of the Rules;

(d) says, with respect to the relief claimed by [Dr Lindrum] in the OA, that:

(i) there is no cause of action disclosed in the SOC which would entitle [Dr Lindrum] to the relief claimed in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the OA;

(ii) [Dr Lindrum] is not entitled to seek (or obtain) relief in this proceeding against anyone other than [T&P] (including by its officers, servants and agents);

(e) denies that [Dr Lindrum] is entitled to any relief at all.

1. Dr Lindrum has filed an amended reply, which to a large extent repeats the allegations in the statement of claim.

1. Although trade marks are not directly in issue for present purposes, it may be helpful, by way of background and context, to identify the trade marks (or trade mark applications) for the word LINDRUM that are referred to in the materials:

(a) The 477 Mark is registered in the name of Dr Lindrum in class 37 in respect of "Development (building and construction) of houses, apartments and resorts". T&P has filed an application with IP Australia seeking to have that mark removed from the Register pursuant to s 92 of the Trade Marks Act.

(b) The 507 Mark is registered in the name of T&P in class 42 in respect of "Procuring lodgings and rooms in hotels, guest houses, and other like accommodation establishments; hotel, guest house and accommodation services included in this class". As noted above, Dr Lindrum sought removal of this trade mark from the Register pursuant to s 92 of the Trade Marks Act and was successful before a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks. T&P has appealed to this Court from the decision of the delegate (proceeding VID783/2025). The decision of the delegate was stayed by the delegate pending the determination of the appeal: see [58] of the delegate's decision. The appeal proceeding is in my docket and has not yet been heard. It is being case managed together with the present proceeding.

(c) The 935 Application has been made by T&P in class 36 in respect of "Real estate leasing; Leasing of residential properties; Leasing of buildings; Subdivision of real estate (real estate services); Real estate agency services". Dr Lindrum has opposed that application. As at the time of the hearing of the present applications (on 1 December 2025), that opposition was scheduled to be heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks on 2 December 2025.

(d) Trade mark no. 2270538 (the 538 Mark) is registered in the name of T&P in class 36 in respect of "Leasing of commercial properties". On 21 October 2025, Dr Lindrum filed an application with IP Australia seeking to have that mark removed from the Register pursuant to s 92 of the Trade Marks Act.

1. In addition to the matters outlined in the Introduction, I set out the following background facts, which are drawn from the affidavit material. These matters have not yet been tested in cross-examination, and therefore the findings at trial may be different.

1. As noted above, Dr Lindrum is the grand-niece of Walter Lindrum, a famous billiards player. Walter Lindrum passed away in 1960.
2. The affidavits filed by Dr Lindrum contain little information about the activities and achievements of members of the Lindrum family, perhaps because Dr Lindrum assumes that these are widely known. In her affidavit of 1 September 2025, Dr Lindrum states at [13] (referring to her father, whose name was Horace Lindrum):

The applicant has made a very considerable investment, in money, time, energy and emotion, in the protection and preservation of the LINDRUM BRAND over a period of 26 years and has carried the name and legacy since birth in 1950. She is the last member of the Lindrum [Family] to have enjoyed a relationship with key champions within the family. In her early years she was photographed with her father across the globe, then, in 1966, she established the LINDRUM Brand through the Lindrum School of Theatre and, consistently, [throughout] her life has promoted the LINDRUM brand, name and heritage and, through her effort, energy, research and investment has established long-term intellectual property, copyright, common law, reputational and equitable rights.

1. These statements are quite general and not supported by detailed material. However, they serve the purpose of indicating the general nature of Dr Lindrum's case.
2. In her affidavit sworn on 28 October 2025 (in support of interlocutory orders), Dr Lindrum states at [3]-[4] and [9]:
   1. Over a quarter of a century, I have invested time, energy and "personal" finances in and towards the preservation of the LINDRUM NAME, BRAND and HERITAGE, including four years of dedicated academic supervised research aimed at correcting errors and/or omissions to ensure the LINDRUM FAMILY HISTORY/STORY is related in the full richness of [its] authenticity. This work could not have been completed in the absence of my mother's extraordinary act of [preservation] and was completed in accord with my mother's wishes. The completed works are branded LINDRUM and are subject to Copyright.
   2. ... LINDRUM is a clear and dominant brand [synonymous] with mastery in a sphere of industry, including primary industry, sport, entertainment, authorship, philanthropy, property development and entrepreneurship and the LINDRUM NAME & BRAND has standing as a consequence of effort over generations that has gone into building reputation and preserving a precious legacy ...

...

1. I say that the general public always associated the "Hotel Lindrum" with the Lindrum Family with many believing that the property was family-owned or assuming that the Lindrum Family were the recipients of a [licence] fee which is the norm and, on contacting IP Australia to query a recent email, the IP Officer made the false but understandable assumption that T. & P. Lindrum Pty. Limited was my company.

1. It may be accepted that Dr Lindrum has invested time, energy and money into preserving and promoting the LINDRUM name. However, she has not adduced any detailed evidence as to whether the family name is widely known in the way that she says it is. Further, she has not adduced any detailed evidence as to whether the general public associated the Hotel Lindrum with her family.
2. In her affidavit sworn on 28 October 2025 (in support of interlocutory orders), Dr Lindrum also gives evidence about her personal reputation in the field of property development. She states at [7]:

I have been involved in building and construction and allied fields since 1998 and, over that time, I have built a stellar reputation in the property development sphere, negotiating key development sites, introducing international capital into the Nation, creating long-term employment opportunities, working as a director alongside SPARK Architects (https:www.sparkarchitects.com) on masterplanning regional centres, representing SPARK at the Lord Mayor of London's Property Development Symposium, overseeing the intricacies of the development of landmark mixed-use developments in Sydney and Wollongong, masterplanning hotels in Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie and in the Southern Highlands and developing land subdivisions.

1. I accept that Dr Lindrum has worked in the field of property development services for some time. However, her material does not include any detailed evidence as to whether she is widely known in that field.

1. The Property is located at the eastern (Spring Street) end of the Melbourne CBD.
2. Mr O'Keefe understands that the building that exists on the Property was designed by Ward & Carleton in the early 1900s for Griffiths Brothers Tea Merchants. The Property is included in the local government heritage overlay by the Melbourne City Council and is protected under the local planning scheme.
3. It does not appear that there is any direct link between Walter Lindrum and the Property. During the hearing, in response to a question from the Court as to whether there was any connection between Walter Lindrum and the Property, Dr Lindrum said that, in 1974, her first cousin once-removed set up a billiard room in the building on the Property (which was then known as the News Ltd building), and that the billiard room operated until the early 1980s. Dr Lindrum also said that the Lindrum family had run a billiard room in Flinders Lane, near to the Property. She said that the Flinders Lane billiard room had been set up by her great-grandfather and that Walter Lindrum had played there.

1. In 1999, the Hotel Lindrum commenced operation in the existing building on the Property. The hotel operated until November 2022. During that period, the hotel provided premium hotel and accommodation services under the names HOTEL LINDRUM and LINDRUM and under the following logo:

1. From about 1999 to the present, the Property has had signage with the words HOTEL LINDRUM on the façade of the building. This includes lettering on the roof of the building in the form of the logo set out above; the lettering runs the width of the building and is visible as people approach the CBD on foot, by road or by public transport. It also includes signage on the side of the building that is visible to pedestrians and road users on Flinders Street. The material exhibited to Mr O'Keefe's affidavit includes photographs of the exterior signage at the Property, taken between March and October 2022.
2. The material before the Court includes a copy of a deed titled "Deed of Settlement and Co-Existence" dated July 1999 between Staged Developments Australia Pty Ltd (Staged Developments), David Marriner, Dr Lindrum and two other members of the Lindrum family relating to the use of the LINDRUM name for the hotel. The recitals state that Staged Developments is developing the premises at 26 Flinders Street, Melbourne as a boutique hotel which will be named "Hotel Lindrum" and that Staged Developments selected the name for the hotel in conjunction with some members of the Lindrum family. The recitals refer to various trade mark issues between the parties to the deed. In broad terms, the deed provides for a resolution of those disputes.
3. From March 2009 to May 2023, the Property was owned by TMG Flinders Pty Ltd and AMCO Flinders Pty Ltd (the Previous Owners).
4. On 22 June 2017, the Previous Owners were granted town planning approval from the Melbourne City Council for a 30-storey mixed-use hotel and residential development on the Property (Original Planning Permit).
5. In around March 2022, following an expression-of-interest process, the Time & Place property development business reached an agreement to purchase the Property from the Previous Owners.
6. On 5 August 2022, T&P Lindrum Development Pty Ltd (T&P Lindrum Development) was incorporated for the purpose of being the developer of the Property. T&P Lindrum Development is part of the Time & Place property development business. I note that T&P Lindrum Development is a different company from Time & Place Development, which is one of the companies that Dr Lindrum seeks to join to the proceeding. Mr O'Keefe gives evidence at [34] of his affidavit that Time & Place Development is a company within the Time & Place business that has been used for other property developments, and that it is not involved in Time & Place's development plans for the Property or connected with the Property in any way. I accept that evidence for present purposes.

1. On 24 May 2023, settlement took place of the sale of the Property to T&P.
2. As part of the purchase of the Property, on 24 May 2023 the 507 Mark was assigned to T&P.
3. From 22 May 2015, the Previous Owners had held a business name registration for the name HOTEL LINDRUM. That business name registration was not transferred to T&P upon the transfer of the Property due to an administrative oversight. The business name registration was cancelled on 26 June 2025.

1. T&P and T&P Lindrum Development are developing the Property and constructing a multi-storey building, comprising 27 storeys of premium office space and a ground floor hospitality space (the New Development). T&P proposes to sell or lease space in the development.
2. In 2023, T&P and T&P Lindrum Development decided to amend the Original Planning Permit to enable the construction of a commercial development instead of a mixed-use hotel and residential development. This decision was based on prevailing economic conditions and commercial factors in the period following the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, T&P and T&P Lindrum Development determined that a commercial development would be the most profitable and best use of the space at the Property.
3. On 14 November 2023, T&P was granted an amendment to the Original Planning Permit, allowing for its planned 27-storey commercial development (Amended Planning Permit). The Amended Planning Permit does not currently include an accommodation space to allow for hotel services to be provided at the Property. T&P has not ruled out making a further amendment to the planning permit to include an accommodation space at the Property.
4. T&P Lindrum Development has engaged Kapitol to construct the New Development. Kapitol is a prominent and well-established builder based in Melbourne. Kapitol provides building services across a range of sectors, including residential and commercial. T&P Lindrum Development has engaged Kapitol, on a design and construct basis, to provide design and building services for the development of the Property. Kapitol is independent from, and not a part of, the Time & Place property development business.
5. On 14 November 2023, site works on the New Development commenced.
6. In October 2024, demolition works at the Property commenced.
7. On 4 August 2025, construction works for the New Development commenced.
8. The forecast completion date of the New Development is May 2027.
9. No leases have been executed in relation to the New Development. Eight contracts of sale have been executed in relation to eight floors of the New Development with entities related to one of the commercial partners and investors in the New Development.

T&P's use and proposed use of the LINDRUM name

1. T&P and T&P Lindrum Development propose to use the name LINDRUM in relation to the New Development. They are already using that name in marketing the New Development. In particular, T&P and T&P Lindrum Development plan to retain the HOTEL LINDRUM roof signage (albeit without the word HOTEL) at the Property.
2. T&P and T&P Development have worked closely with the architects for the New Development to ensure that the heritage of the Property, including the façade and the HOTEL LINDRUM roof signage, is incorporated into the New Development. Exhibit CJO-1 to Mr O'Keefe's affidavit includes architectural drawings for the New Development which were submitted in support of the application for the Amended Planning Permit. The renders on pages 1, 30 and 34 show how the HOTEL LINDRUM roof signage will be incorporated into the New Development (albeit without the word HOTEL).
3. The architectural drawings for the New Development referred to in the preceding paragraph were endorsed by Melbourne City Council on 28 October 2024. This means that in order for the New Development to match with the endorsed architectural drawings and the Amended Planning Permit, the HOTEL LINDRUM roof signage (albeit without the word HOTEL) must be included in the finished build. If it is not, a further amendment to the Amended Planning Permit may need to be sought (which would be at the discretion of Melbourne City Council and outside of the control of T&P).
4. In his affidavit at [57], Mr O'Keefe states (and I accept) that T&P and T&P Lindrum Development have no intention or desire to use the LINDRUM name other than in respect of the Property; there is no desire to use the LINDRUM name at any other locations in Melbourne or Australia as the name was only used by the Previous Owners in respect of the Property.
5. Kapitol has used the name LINDRUM in only a limited way. Kapitol has used and is using LINDRUM in the signage at the Property, induction materials and internal business documents about the New Development.
6. Kapitol published online posts about the New Development which referred to LINDRUM. However, for purely commercial reasons and on a without admissions basis, Kapitol deleted those references after becoming aware of the dispute which is the subject of this proceeding.
7. The Time & Place property development business does not own any trade marks, or have any trade mark applications, for the word LINDRUM in relation to property development or building and construction services. This is because Time & Place does not provide property development or building and construction services under or by reference to the name LINDRUM. Time & Place's property development services are provided under the TIME & PLACE brand.

1. The relevant principles in relation to an application for an interlocutory injunction are those explained in Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618 (Beecham) at 622-623: see Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 (O'Neill) at [65] per Gummow and Hayne JJ. The two main issues may be summarised as:

(a) whether the applicant for injunctive relief has established a prima facie case; and

(b) whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction.

1. The requirement to establish a prima facie case does not mean that the applicant must show that it is more probable than not that it will succeed at the trial. It is sufficient to show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify in the circumstances the preservation of the status quo pending the trial: O'Neill at [65] per Gummow and Hayne JJ, with whom Gleeson CJ and Crennan J relevantly agreed at [19].
2. The "balance of convenience" consideration requires an assessment of whether the inconvenience or injury which the applicant would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the injury which the respondent would suffer if an injunction were granted: Beecham at 623.
3. The strength of the applicant's case is not considered in isolation from the balance of convenience: Samsung Electronics Company Ltd v Apple Inc [2011] FCAFC 156; 217 FCR 238 at [67]. In considering where the lower risk of injustice lies, all relevant factors are to be weighed in the balance. The strength of the applicant's case and their chances of success may be a relevant matter when assessing the balance of convenience.

1. I will start by considering whether Dr Lindrum has established a prima facie case for the relief relevantly sought in the proceeding. This is, relevantly, the relief sought in [4]-[8] of the originating application (set out at [14] above).
2. Dr Lindrum contends, in summary, that T&P's use of the LINDRUM name in connection with the development of the commercial office building on the Property involves passing off or misleading or deceptive conduct (or conduct likely to mislead or deceive) contrary to s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law on the basis that it conveys an association with, or authority from, the Lindrum family in general or Dr Lindrum in particular.
3. At a conceptual level, the case sought to be advanced by Dr Lindrum, based on passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct, is plausible. For example, if it can be established that Dr Lindrum's family (including Walter Lindrum and Horace Lindrum) is widely known for its sporting or other achievements, and that the ordinary and reasonable member of the relevant class of persons would assume an association between Dr Lindrum's family and the building on the Property bearing the LINDRUM name, or would assume that Dr Lindrum's family has given its licence, authority or consent to the building owner using the LINDRUM name on the building, Dr Lindrum may be able to establish a claim of passing off or misleading or deceptive conduct: see, by analogy, Henderson v Radio Corporation Pty Ltd (1960) 60 SR (NSW) 576; Wickham v Associated Pool Builders Pty Ltd (1988) 12 IPR 567; Fitzgerald v 33 South Pty Ltd [2008] FMCA 1132.
4. However, in my view, at this stage at least, Dr Lindrum has not gathered sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the relief claimed; alternatively, any prima facie case is very weak.
5. While Dr Lindrum's affidavit evidence asserts that the Lindrum family name enjoys a strong reputation in a number of fields (including primary industry, sport, entertainment, authorship, philanthropy, property development and entrepreneurship), there is no detailed evidence to support that proposition. As stated above, it may be accepted that Dr Lindrum has invested time, energy and money into preserving and promoting the LINDRUM name. However, this does not establish that those efforts have been successful. It may be that, for the purposes of the trial of this proceeding, Dr Lindrum will be able to gather evidence to establish that the family name is widely known in some or all of the fields referred to in her affidavit evidence. However, at this stage, there is insufficient evidence to establish on a prima facie basis that the family name is widely known in the way that Dr Lindrum contends. Alternatively, the evidence that the family name is widely known in the way Dr Lindrum contends is very weak. Further, Dr Lindrum has not put on evidence to support the proposition that members of the public would assume that there is an association between the building being constructed on the Property and Dr Lindrum's family (whether by reason of a perceived association between the Hotel Lindrum and her family, or otherwise).
6. Dr Lindrum also relies on her personal reputation in the field of property development. Dr Lindrum's affidavit of 28 October 2025 (in support of interlocutory orders) sets out details of property development projects that she has carried out. However, the affidavit does not include any detailed evidence as to whether she is widely known in that field. Again, it may be that, for the purposes of the trial, Dr Lindrum will be able to gather such evidence. However, at this stage, the evidence is insufficient to establish on a prima facie basis that she is widely known in that field. Alternatively, the evidence that Dr Lindrum is widely known in the field of property development is very weak.
7. In light of these matters, I am not satisfied that Dr Lindrum has established a prima facie case for the relief claimed; alternatively, I consider that any prima facie case is very weak.
8. The above discussion focuses on Dr Lindrum's claims based on passing off and misleading or deceptive conduct. Dr Lindrum's claims based on ss 181-184 of the Corporations Act are not developed in her pleading, evidence or submissions. It appears that she relies on a similar factual foundation to advance those claims. Therefore, the difficulties discussed above apply equally - at this stage, at least - to the Corporations Act claims.
9. The discussion above has proceeded on the basis of Dr Lindrum's pleaded claims (namely, passing off, misleading or deceptive conduct and alleged contraventions of the Corporations Act). I note for completeness that, in her affidavit material, Dr Lindrum also relies on trade mark infringement within the meaning of s 120 of the Trade Marks Act. If her case were considered on that basis, I consider that any prima facie case would be very weak. The trade marks referred to in the materials have been outlined at [31] above. Of those marks, one is registered in the name of Dr Lindrum, namely the 477 Mark. That mark is for the word LINDRUM in class 37 in respect of "Development (building and construction) of houses, apartments and resorts". The evidence does not suggest that T&P is using LINDRUM in connection with the "[d]evelopment (building and construction) of houses, apartments and resorts". T&P and T&P Lindrum Development are constructing a commercial office building rather than houses or apartments or a resort. Insofar as Dr Lindum may be able to rely on s 120(3), there is presently very little evidence to support such a case. I note also that, insofar as T&P is using LINDRUM in connection with leasing of commercial properties, these services are covered by the 538 Mark and T&P would appear to be able to rely on the defence in s 122(1)(e) of the Trade Marks Act.
10. I will now consider the balance of convenience. For the reasons that follow, I consider that the balance of convenience favours not granting an interlocutory injunction.
11. First, I consider that damages would be an adequate remedy in the event that Dr Lindrum is successful at trial. In Dr Lindrum's affidavit material and submissions, she contends that T&P should be required to negotiate in good faith a reasonable licence fee for its use of the LINDRUM name on the building: see, for example, [27] of Dr Lindrum's affidavit of 28 October 2025 (in support of interlocutory orders); [25] of Dr Lindrum's submissions. This indicates that damages (which could be calculated on the basis of what would be a reasonable licence fee) would be an adequate remedy if Dr Lindrum is successful at trial.
12. Secondly, if an interlocutory injunction were granted, this would require T&P to revise its marketing materials in relation to the project at considerable expense. The affidavit of Mr O'Keefe shows that marketing materials (using LINDRUM as the name of the development) have already been prepared. Indeed, these materials have been used for some time. If an injunction were granted, these materials would need to be revised. Mr O'Keefe estimates that this would take approximately three months and that the cost would be in the order of $400,000. While Dr Lindrum has offered to provide the usual undertaking as to damages, it is unclear on the present material whether she would be in a position to satisfy the undertaking. She has not offered to provide security for the undertaking as to damages.
13. Thirdly, Dr Lindrum has delayed in bringing the application for interlocutory injunctive relief. In Dr Lindrum's affidavit of 1 September 2025, she states at [23] that her objection to T&P's use of the LINDRUM name, brand and mark "has been well-articulated to [T&P] and [its] legal representatives and has been well-documented since 2023". As I understand this evidence, Dr Lindrum has been aware since 2023 of T&P's use or proposed use of the LINDRUM name. However, she did not commence this proceeding (which includes her claim for interlocutory injunctive relief) until 30 September 2025. That delay has not been adequately explained.
14. Having regard to these matters, the balance of convenience favours not granting an interlocutory injunction. For these reasons, the application for an interlocutory injunction against T&P is to be dismissed.
15. Insofar as Dr Lindrum seeks interlocutory relief against Time & Place Development, this company does not appear to be using the LINDRUM name. The company is unconnected with the project on the Property. Accordingly, there is no basis for an interlocutory injunction against that company.
16. Insofar as Dr Lindrum seeks interlocutory relief against Kapitol, for substantially the same reasons as set out above in relation to T&P, I am not satisfied that Dr Lindrum has established a prima facie case. Alternatively, any prima facie case is weak. I consider that the balance of convenience favours not granting an interlocutory injunction, having regard to, at least, the matter discussed in [83] above. Accordingly, the application for an interlocutory injunction against Kapitol is to be dismissed.
17. Dr Lindrum also seeks joinder of Time & Place Development and Kapitol. In the absence of a pleading, it is difficult to consider this application. In relation to Time & Place Development, there does not appear to be a proper basis for joining the company as a respondent. As stated above, it is not using the LINDRUM name as it does not have a role in relation to the project at the Property. In relation to Kapitol, I do not consider it appropriate to consider the joinder issue in the absence of a draft pleading. Accordingly, I will dismiss the joinder application.

1. For these reasons, I conclude that both the application for interlocutory injunctive relief and the application for joinder should be dismissed. In relation to costs, I will make orders to the following effect:

(a) Subject to (c), Dr Lindrum pay T&P's costs of the interlocutory application seeking injunctive relief.

(b) Subject to (c), there be no order as to costs in relation to the joinder application.

(c) If any party seeks a different costs order, the party may file and serve a written submission by 4.00 pm on 23 January 2026. In that event, the other party may file a responding written submission by 4.00 pm on 30 January 2026 and the issue of costs will be determined on the papers.

I certify that the preceding ninety (90) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Moshinsky.