Avwin Pty Ltd v PT Limited and Ors [2024] NSWSC 551

Avwin Pty Ltd v PT Limited and Ors [2024] NSWSC 551

Because nothing had relevantly changed since the 19 April 2024 judgment, the plaintiff had no entitlement to remain in the premises after 15 May 2024, damages were an adequate remedy for any claim during the remaining period, and Zilver had a registered lease commencing 1 May 2024 under which delay in occupation would be prejudicial, the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants. The plaintiff was therefore required on an interlocutory basis to vacate the premises, on the undertaking as to damages given by Westfield and Zilver for the period up to 15 May 2024.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Equity Duty List; Procedural Ruling Concerning Urgent Interlocutory Relief / Relisted Interlocutory Application by the First and Second Defendants Seeking Orders Requiring the Plaintiff to Vacate the Premises and Not Hinder Re Entry
Outcome
Interlocutory relief granted requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises; adjournment refused; costs of the day ordered against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['urgent Interlocutory Relief' 'mandatory Interlocutory Orders' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'registered Lease' 're Entry and Repossession by Landlord']
['equity' 'injunctions' 'leases and Possession of Premises'] ['urgent Interlocutory Relief' 'mandatory Interlocutory Orders' 'balance of Convenience' 'adequacy of Damages' 'registered Lease' 're Entry and Repossession by Landlord']

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

Equity Duty List; Procedural Ruling Concerning Urgent Interlocutory Relief / Relisted Interlocutory Application by the First and Second Defendants Seeking Orders Requiring the Plaintiff to Vacate the Premises and Not Hinder Re Entry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be required on an interlocutory basis to vacate Shop 600, Westfield Chatswood after the earlier injunction restraining the landlord was discharged.' "Whether the plaintiff had any basis to remain in possession over Zilver's entitlement under its registered lease commencing 1 May 2024." 'Whether damages were an adequate remedy for any claim by the plaintiff for being excluded from the premises before 15 May 2024.' 'Whether the hearing should be adjourned because the plaintiff had notice of the relisting only on the morning of 2 May 2024.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because nothing had relevantly changed since the 19 April 2024 judgment, the plaintiff had no entitlement to remain in the premises after 15 May 2024, damages were an adequate remedy for any claim during the remaining period, and Zilver had a registered lease commencing 1 May 2024 under which delay in occupation would be prejudicial, the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants. The plaintiff was therefore required on an interlocutory basis to vacate the premises, on the undertaking as to damages given by Westfield and Zilver for the period up to 15 May 2024.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory relief granted requiring the plaintiff to vacate the premises; adjournment refused; costs of the day ordered against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['The undertaking as to damages given by the first defendant and second defendant through their respective counsel was noted, such undertaking to relate only to the period between the defendant taking possession of the premises and 15 May 2024.' 'On an interlocutory basis, the plaintiff, its officers, employees or...