These proceedings were commenced by Summons on 29 May 2026, where the matter was entered into the Expedition list and ordered to proceed by pleadings.

A Notice of Motion in the Equity Division, filed on 25 June 2026 by the Plaintiff, Spearpoint Solutions and Technology Pty Limited (Spearpoint) sought interlocutory injunctive relief and to restrain the defendant, Gentex Corporation (Gentex) from appointing, supplying, or representing that there is another distributor within the Australian and New Zealand markets.

The product in dispute is ‘Ground Systems’, which are ballistic bump helmets and associated accessories.  Gentex manufactures and supplies such helmets for use by ground-based defence and emergency services personnel.

Prior to the Notice of Motion hearing Gentex had agreed to some of the terms (without admission) proposed by the Plaintiff.  The outstanding proposed order referred to the restraint of the defendant as follows:

d. be restrained, by itself, its servants or agents, from:

i. appointing any person or entity except for the plaintiff as its representative to distribute Ground Systems within Australia and New Zealand;

ii. supplying or distributing Ground Systems, or causing Ground Systems to be supplied or distributed, within Australia or New Zealand to any person or entity except for the plaintiff; and

iii. making any representation to any person or entity that it has appointed any person or entity except for the plaintiff as its representative to distribute Ground Systems within Australia and New Zealand.

Affidavits were presented by solicitors for both parties, which relied on information and belief provided by employees and executives from Spearpoint and Gentex respectively.

Background

The defendant is a US-based company which manufactures helmets and associated accessories for ground forces. 

The Plaintiff, Spearpoint is an Australian company that sources and supplies defence-related products.

Spearpoint has been the sole distributor of Gentex products as described between 2012 – 2025 in the Australia and New Zealand markets.

Gentex sent a letter dated 10 October 2024 confirming these exclusive rights up to December 31, 2027.

In an email dated 16 January 2025, Gentex withdrew its confirmation detailed in the 10 October 2024 letter, citing organisational restructuring.  It also confirmed a ‘non-exclusive’ relationship.

During the 2025 year, business effectively carried on as usual.

In around February 2026, Spearpoint found on the Gentex website that they had been removed as a distributor.

Gentex Australia Pty Limited (Gentex Australia) was in their place.  In addition, Gentex refused to fulfill five purchase orders, although subsequently and as part of these proceedings, they did so.

Spearpoint became aware in around May 2026 that Gentex Australia had contacted one of its customers and directed them to place orders with Gentex Australia.

Proceedings

Spearpoint contends that the letter of 10 October 2024 has contractual effect until 31 December 2027.

Spearpoint seeks orders for declaratory and injunctive relief as follows:

1. restraining Gentex from appointing other distributors of Ground Systems in Australia and New Zealand, or making representations to that effect;
2. requiring Gentex to provide an updated price list for Ground Systems to Spearpoint within a reasonable time of its adoption by Gentex; and
3. requiring Gentex to supply Ground Systems to Spearpoint within a reasonable time of receipt of purchase orders from Spearpoint at the prices in the applicable price list and otherwise on Gentex’s standard terms and conditions of sale.

A claim for damages is not part of the ‘Expedited Claims’ (as previously defined in Orders given on 26 June 2026).

The Defence is due to be filed by Gentex by 10 July 2026.  The subject of the motion filed on 25 June 2026 has been agreed between the parties.

Submissions and Consideration

Spearpoint summarised the issues in question as follows:

6. The competing issue between the parties in substance now resolves to whether either:

a. Gentex should be restrained from appointing, supplying or representing that there is another distributor of Ground within the Australian and New Zealand markets pending final determination of the proceedings, as sought by Spearpoint; or

b. the Court should instead accept the proffered undertakings that, whilst Gentex’s wholly owned subsidiary (Gentex Australia Pty Ltd) will be permitted to be active in that market for Ground Systems, Gentex will be restrained from, variously:

i. telling people not to deal with Spearpoint or to deal only with Gentex Australia; or

ii. making any request or direction to identified customers that they deal with Gentex Australia,

but will otherwise be permitted to:

iii. provide quotes and indicate availability of supply through Gentex Australia if requested by a customer;

iv. where asked by a customer who to deal with, indicate that they can deal with either Spearpoint or Gentex Australia; and

v. undertake what are described as “general marketing and customer relations discussions” in the usual course of business, limited only by requiring an indication that supply is available through both Gentex Australia and Spearpoint.

Damages

Spearpoint is concerned that goodwill built up over the past fourteen (14) years will be lost, affecting both Spearpoint and Gentex within the markets.  Spearpoint also contends that an award for damages would be difficult to quantify for both loss of potential future orders, or lack of success in future tenders by not being able to represent exclusivity.  The court agreed with this.

Uncertainty

Spearpoint contended that Gentex’ offer to continue supply to Spearpoint, but also maintain supply through Gentex Australia is damaging both parties in the market.  The Court accepted this.

The Court also noted that Gentex, should the injunctive relief be granted, would be required to contact the customer it already contacted, to clarify the position.

Prejudice and Harm

Gentex has booked a stall at the ‘Land Forces Expedition’ in October 2026.  Should the injunctive relief be granted, Spearpoint has offered to take over the booking.

Gentex put forward that the entity of Gentex Australia into the Australia and New Zealand market will be delayed if the restraint order is granted, including confusion for the customers and potential reputational damage.

Gentex put forward that it would be restricted from directing customers to place orders only with Gentex Australia and rather giving customers a choice.

The Court did not see this as a solution, but rather contributing to customer confusion.

The Court also accepts that any loss or damage suffered by Gentex should they be successful in the substantive proceedings, is outweighed by the potential damage to Spearpoint and favours the granting of a restraint order.

Delay by Spearpoint

Gentex asserted that there has been a ‘gross’ delay by Spearpoint in seeking relief.

Spearpoint suggested that nothing that it has done has hindered any progression by Gentex into the Australian and New Zealand market; the only evidence that Gentex has moved into the local market it the approach to one of Spearpoint’s clients, which occurred in May 2026.

Balance of Convenience

Gentex put forward that the letter of October 2024 ‘bears no resemblance to a contract’, and that there was no suggestion that the contents of the letter were irrevocable, despite it having an end date for exclusivity.

Although the court recognises the issues of evidence and law will not be straightforward, Spearpoint’s case is not weak to the point where the restraint should not be granted.

In addition, the court sees that the granting of the injunction will assist Gentex’ concerns to clear customer confusion.

In summary, the Court considered:

–          whether damages are an adequate remedy

–          the circumstances of uncertainty

–          the prejudice of harm that each party may suffer should injunctive relief be granted or not

–          the delay by Spearpoint in seeking the injunction

The Court decided the injunction sought should be granted, and the restraint order made.

An expedited hearing in the matter has been set for 21 September 2026.

CLICK HERE for the full judgement.