Alinta Cogeneration Pty Ltd v Shanghai Electric Power Design Institute Co. Ltd [2025] WASC 455

Tom French  |  Naoisa McNelis

Key takeouts

The Court will grant urgent injunctive relief for delivery up of goods and materials where there is:

• commercial urgency;
• substantial ongoing prejudice to the party seeking delivery of the materials; and
• limited prejudice to the respondent on the basis that it has no other commercial use for the components and would have adequate legal remedies if delivery was wrongfully ordered.

Facts

In August 2023, Alinta Cogeneration Pty Ltd (Alinta) entered a contract with Shanghai Electric Power Design Institute Co. Ltd (Shanghai) for the engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of a battery storage facility in regional Western Australia.

The contractors were required to procure:

• Transformer accessories;
• Transformers;
• Cables;
• Inverters; and
• Batteries.

Completion of works was significantly delayed and Alinta terminated the contract on 11 September 2025. On 12 September 2025, Alinta engaged a third party to complete the remaining works, with completion scheduled for 30 April 2026.

At termination, all components remained under Shanghai’s control at various offsite locations. Despite Alinta’s written demands for delivery, Shanghai refused to release the Inverters and Batteries.

Alinta commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court seeking declarations and a mandatory injunction for delivery up of the components, claiming both breach of contract and detinue. Alinta argued the delivery was urgent as the components were on the ‘critical path’ with daily project costs exceeding $300,000.

Shanghai disputed return of the Inverters and Batteries on the basis that a clause in the contract only required “return” of items previously in Alinta’s possession (which these components never were). Further, Shanghai contended that payment was a precondition to delivery, giving it a contractual right to retain the components until receiving adequate compensation. 

Decision

Musikanth J granted the interlocutory injunction requiring delivery of the Inverters and Batteries on the basis that there was a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience strongly favoured the delivery up of materials to Alinta.

The Court found Alinta demonstrated a serious question to be tried on two grounds:

1. Contractual claim

Under the contract, title in the Inverters and Batteries had passed to Alinta upon payment of milestone amounts. Once title passed, the components became property of Alinta that Shanghai was obliged to return them upon termination.

2. Detinue claim

Despite Alinta’s demand letter, Shanghai’s continued retention of the components gave rise to a cause of action in detinue.

Musikanth J found the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured granting the injunction based on:

• the commercial urgency of the situation;
• substantial ongoing prejudice as the project was already delayed by over nine months with Alinta suffering continuing financial harm; and
• the limited prejudice to Shanghai as it had no other commercial use for the specialised components and would have adequate legal remedies if delivery was wrongfully ordered.