Terceiro & Anor v Elmore & Ors [2006] NSWSC 893

Terceiro & Anor v Elmore & Ors [2006] NSWSC 893

While a sufficiently arguable case exists for the lessors' claimed financial interest, the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages as a remedy do not warrant granting an interlocutory injunction against the proposed transfer of poker machine entitlements. The damage, if any, will arise upon expiry of the lease, and can be quantified and remedied at that time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Contested Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused and Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['gaming Machines' 'lease' 'reversion' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'doctrine of Accretion' 'financial Interest']
['equity' 'commercial Law'] ['gaming Machines' 'lease' 'reversion' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'doctrine of Accretion' 'financial Interest']

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

Interlocutory Application / Contested Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the lessors have a financial interest in the hotel licence for the purposes of s.19(3) of the Gaming Machines Act 2001 (NSW)' 'Whether the doctrine of accretion gives the lessors a present reversionary interest in poker machine entitlements' 'Whether the balance of convenience favours granting an interlocutory injunction' 'Whether damages are an adequate remedy']

Ratio Decidendi

While a sufficiently arguable case exists for the lessors' claimed financial interest, the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages as a remedy do not warrant granting an interlocutory injunction against the proposed transfer of poker machine entitlements. The damage, if any, will arise upon expiry of the lease, and can be quantified and remedied at that time.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused and Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the First and Second Defendants of the Notice of Motion.' 'Matter stood over before the Registrar for further directions on 8 September 2006.']