Booth v Bosworth [2000] FCA 1878
The Court declined to grant an interim injunction, finding the evidence highly contentious, the harm not sufficiently established for interlocutory relief, and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction due to the irretrievable loss to the respondent if granted. The decision does not prejudge the final determination at trial.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
- Outcome
- Application for interim injunction refused
- Legal Topics
- ['interim Injunction' 'world Heritage Protection' 'standing Under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999' 'significant Impact Test' 'balance of Convenience']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the respondent's actions have, will have, or are likely to have a significant impact on the world heritage values of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area" 'Whether an interim injunction should be granted on the balance of convenience']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined to grant an interim injunction, finding the evidence highly contentious, the harm not sufficiently established for interlocutory relief, and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction due to the irretrievable loss to the respondent if granted. The decision does not prejudge the final determination at trial.
Court Disposition
Application for interim injunction refused
Orders
- ['The application for interim injunction be refused.' "The respondent's costs of and incidental to the application be the respondent's costs in the principal proceedings."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment