Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Stateland Developments Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1425

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Stateland Developments Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1425

There was a serious question to be tried that the parties had entered into a binding agreement for lease and that it continued to exist notwithstanding the defendant's frustration argument. That agreement gave the plaintiff an interest that had or may have substance for caveat purposes. Damages were not an adequate remedy because the claimed interest was a substantial equitable right to a long lease and the defendant appeared to be in a poor financial position. The injunction was not shown to be futile because it was uncertain whether the bank would take possession and, even if it did, the effect would depend on how it acted; the injunction also would not absolutely prevent a sale but...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Seeking Extension of a Caveat and Interlocutory Injunction Concerning an Alleged Agreement for Lease / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Caveat extended until further order and interlocutory injunction granted upon appropriate undertakings as to damages.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'caveats' 'agreement for Lease' 'frustration of Contract' 'adequacy of Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'futility of Remedy']
['equity' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'caveats' 'agreement for Lease' 'frustration of Contract' 'adequacy of Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'futility of Remedy']

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 Proceeding Seeking Extension of a Caveat and Interlocutory Injunction Concerning an Alleged Agreement for Lease / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried that a binding agreement for lease came into existence between the parties.' "Whether the alleged agreement for lease created an estate or interest sufficient for the plaintiff's caveat to be extended." 'Whether the doctrine of frustration prevented the plaintiff from showing that the contract continued to exist.' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff if interlocutory injunctive relief were refused.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction restraining sale except in accordance with clause 21.' 'Whether the proposed injunction would be futile or inutile because the mortgagee bank might take possession.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was a serious question to be tried that the parties had entered into a binding agreement for lease and that it continued to exist notwithstanding the defendant's frustration argument. That agreement gave the plaintiff an interest that had or may have substance for caveat purposes. Damages were not an adequate remedy because the claimed interest was a substantial equitable right to a long lease and the defendant appeared to be in a poor financial position. The injunction was not shown to be futile because it was uncertain whether the bank would take possession and, even if it did, the effect would depend on how it acted; the injunction also would not absolutely prevent a sale but...

Court Disposition

Caveat extended until further order and interlocutory injunction granted upon appropriate undertakings as to damages.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's caveat is to be extended until further order." 'Interlocutory injunctive relief is to be granted upon the Court being proffered appropriate undertakings as to damages.' 'The proceedings are to continue on pleadings.' 'The plaintiff is to file and serve a statement of claim on or before Friday.'...