WILSON v TETLEY [2003] NSWCA 98

WILSON v TETLEY [2003] NSWCA 98

Although the appeal had an arguable prospect of success, interlocutory relief was refused because the respondent had not been served, there was a significant risk that any injunction could not be served and would lack practical utility before the auction, and the claimant had not shown that the interests of justice required extraordinary interim relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction Pending Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Ex Parte Interlocutory Relief After Dismissal of Relief in the Supreme Court Equity Division
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'specific Relief' 'adequacy of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'service' 'breach of Contractual Duty']
['contract Law' 'equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'specific Relief' 'adequacy of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'service' 'breach of Contractual Duty']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction Pending Application for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application for Ex Parte Interlocutory Relief After Dismissal of Relief in the Supreme Court Equity Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Appeal should grant an ex parte interlocutory injunction requiring the opponent to provide verifying information in time for an auction of embryos.' 'Whether damages were an adequate remedy for the claimant if the information was not provided.' 'Whether interlocutory relief was appropriate where the respondent had not been served and the order might lack practical utility.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appeal had an arguable prospect of success, interlocutory relief was refused because the respondent had not been served, there was a significant risk that any injunction could not be served and would lack practical utility before the auction, and the claimant had not shown that the interests of justice required extraordinary interim relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an interlocutory injunction is refused.' 'The claimant has leave to amend the summons for leave to make it returnable on 16 May 2003 at 10.15 am.' "The amended summons, the claimant's summary of argument and any other documents required to be inserted in the white book, the affidavit of Susan...