BBB Constructions Pty Limited v Catherine J Burn & Ors [2008] NSWSC 356

BBB Constructions Pty Limited v Catherine J Burn & Ors [2008] NSWSC 356

The plaintiff was not entitled to the urgent interlocutory restraining orders because it had not satisfied the Court that the emergency was over or that the SERM Act no longer applied, important stabilisation steps had not yet been taken, the balance of convenience and public interest favoured maintaining the status quo with the second defendant and its contractors on site carrying out remedial works, and damages would be an adequate remedy if the defendants ultimately lacked power.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Injunctive Relief Concerning Directions Under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 / Urgent Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Restraining Orders Before Final Hearing
Outcome
The plaintiff's notice of motion filed in court on 8 April 2008 was dismissed; costs were reserved; the matter was stood over for final hearing.
Legal Topics
['validity of Emergency Directions' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'public Interest in Emergency Remediation' 'adequacy of Damages']
['administrative Law' 'emergency Management' 'injunctive Relief'] ['validity of Emergency Directions' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'public Interest in Emergency Remediation' 'adequacy of Damages']

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

Administrative Law Proceedings Seeking Declarations and Injunctive Relief Concerning Directions Under the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 / Urgent Interlocutory Notice of Motion for Restraining Orders Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted interlocutory orders restraining the defendants from entering the site and carrying out works under the 4 April 2008 direction.' 'Whether the plaintiff had shown, for interlocutory purposes, that the emergency had ended so that the State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 no longer applied.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining the defendants or allowing the second defendant and its contractors to remain on site and carry out remedial works.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff if the defendants lacked power under the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not entitled to the urgent interlocutory restraining orders because it had not satisfied the Court that the emergency was over or that the SERM Act no longer applied, important stabilisation steps had not yet been taken, the balance of convenience and public interest favoured maintaining the status quo with the second defendant and its contractors on site carrying out remedial works, and damages would be an adequate remedy if the defendants ultimately lacked power.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's notice of motion filed in court on 8 April 2008 was dismissed; costs were reserved; the matter was stood over for final hearing.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's motion of 8 April 2008 is dismissed." 'Costs are reserved.' 'The matter is stood over for final hearing to 10am on Thursday, 10 April 2008.']