latest, page-25

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2010WASC0033/$FILE/2010WASC0033.pdf

Conclusion is as follows:

Conclusion

In my view, taking everything into account, I am not persuaded that the balance of convenience, in the present circumstances, favours the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the first to fifth defendants from exercising any voting rights they may have in relation to the disputed shares. The litigation should, however, move quickly to an early trial, so that the rights of the parties can finally be determined.

thanks