Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Canberra Land Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 110

Canberra Residential Developments Pty Ltd v Canberra Land Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 110

Even assuming that the applicant could establish a prima facie case for a proposed appeal, the balance of convenience did not favour relief because evidence indicated that the third respondent and its principals had extensive assets from which any successful appeal orders could be funded, and the applicant's claimed interest was not secured; justice did not require effectively giving the applicant security for a possible appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Injunctive Relief Restraining Dealing With Funds / Interlocutory Application After Dismissal of the Substantive Application and Before Expiry of Time to Appeal
Outcome
The application in the notice of motion was otherwise dismissed, with service dispensed with and the motion made returnable instanter; the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'prima Facie Case on Appeal' 'joint Venture' 'fiduciary Duties' 'caveats' "solicitors' Undertakings"]
['equity' 'civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience' 'prima Facie Case on Appeal' 'joint Venture' 'fiduciary Duties' 'caveats' "solicitors' Undertakings"]

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

Notice of Motion for Injunctive Relief Restraining Dealing With Funds / Interlocutory Application After Dismissal of the Substantive Application and Before Expiry of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent should be restrained from instructing its solicitors to deal with or release proceeds of sale of land at Gungahlin until 4.30 pm on 20 February 2009.' 'Whether the applicant had a prima facie case in respect of a proposed appeal.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interlocutory restraint.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming that the applicant could establish a prima facie case for a proposed appeal, the balance of convenience did not favour relief because evidence indicated that the third respondent and its principals had extensive assets from which any successful appeal orders could be funded, and the applicant's claimed interest was not secured; justice did not require effectively giving the applicant security for a possible appeal.

Court Disposition

The application in the notice of motion was otherwise dismissed, with service dispensed with and the motion made returnable instanter; the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The service of the notice of motion be dispensed with.' 'The notice of motion be made returnable instanter.' 'Otherwise the application in the notice of motion be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondents in respect of this application.']