AMMG Pty Ltd v Arndell [2016] NSWSC 203

AMMG Pty Ltd v Arndell [2016] NSWSC 203

Even assuming in AMMG's favour that there was a serious question to be tried about contracts arising on 24 December 2015 or 1 March 2016, the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory relief because AMMG had not established that it was able to perform the alleged contract, there was no evidence of its capacity to satisfy the undertaking as to damages, and it delayed until several hours before the auction despite the possibility of seeking relief having been open for weeks, thereby prejudicing Mr Arndell and increasing likely damage from an injunction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Duty List; Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application by Summons Filed on 5 March 2016
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant's costs of the application forthwith; proceedings stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'delay' 'sale of Land' 'specific Performance']
['equity' 'civil Procedure' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'balance of Convenience' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'delay' 'sale of Land' 'specific Performance']

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; Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Urgent Interlocutory Application by Summons Filed on 5 March 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether AMMG established a prima facie case or serious question to be tried that a contract for sale of the property came into existence on 24 December 2015 or 1 March 2016.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy and whether AMMG had capacity to satisfy its undertaking as to damages.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief restraining Mr Arndell from selling, leasing or advertising the property.' "Whether AMMG's delay in seeking urgent injunctive relief shortly before the auction warranted refusal of relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming in AMMG's favour that there was a serious question to be tried about contracts arising on 24 December 2015 or 1 March 2016, the balance of convenience did not favour interlocutory relief because AMMG had not established that it was able to perform the alleged contract, there was no evidence of its capacity to satisfy the undertaking as to damages, and it delayed until several hours before the auction despite the possibility of seeking relief having been open for weeks, thereby prejudicing Mr Arndell and increasing likely damage from an injunction.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for interlocutory injunction dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant's costs of the application forthwith; proceedings stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['The application by the Plaintiff for interim relief as set out in paragraphs 6-8 of the Summons filed on 5 March 2016 be dismissed.' "The Plaintiff pay the Defendant's costs of the application, as agreed or as assessed, such costs to be paid forthwith." 'The proceedings be stood over for directions before the...