Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors [No 3] [2003] NSWLEC 86

Carriage v Stockland (Constructors) Pty Ltd and Ors [No 3] [2003] NSWLEC 86

Applicant failed to demonstrate a relevant change of circumstance or provide new evidence sufficient to satisfy the criteria for granting an interlocutory injunction; there was no serious question to be tried, no evidence of irreparable harm since the last hearing, balance of convenience favoured refusal as work was nearly complete and Applicant's undertaking as to damages would be of little worth.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Second Interlocutory Application Before Final Determination
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'development Consent' 'protection of Aboriginal Relics' 'balance of Convenience' 'irreparable Harm']
['environmental Law' 'planning Law'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'development Consent' 'protection of Aboriginal Relics' 'balance of Convenience' 'irreparable Harm']

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 / Second Interlocutory Application Before Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether circumstances have changed since the previous interlocutory application to warrant grant of injunction' 'Whether there is a serious question to be tried' 'Whether Applicant will suffer irreparable harm' 'Whether balance of convenience favours granting injunction']

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate a relevant change of circumstance or provide new evidence sufficient to satisfy the criteria for granting an interlocutory injunction; there was no serious question to be tried, no evidence of irreparable harm since the last hearing, balance of convenience favoured refusal as work was nearly complete and Applicant's undertaking as to damages would be of little worth.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • ["Prayer 1 in the Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 3 February 2003 is refused."]