Bond v Gray [2013] NSWSC 1793

Bond v Gray [2013] NSWSC 1793

Although the plaintiff had established, with reservations, a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured denial of interlocutory relief because the plaintiff lacked the resources to satisfy the usual undertaking as to damages, offered no third party undertaking or other security, and there was no evidence that the defendants had engaged or would engage in dissipation of assets. The interests of justice were best served by refusing continuation of the caveats or equivalent injunctive relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Principal Proceedings Alleging a Partnership Business Operating Brothels and Escort Agencies / Notices of Motion for Interlocutory Orders Concerning Caveats and Possible Injunctive Relief Pending Final Hearing
Outcome
Application by plaintiff for interlocutory orders, including extended operation of caveats, refused with costs; Victorian caveat ordered to be removed.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunctions' 'caveats' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'partnership Property Allegations' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'real Property'] ['interlocutory Injunctions' 'caveats' 'undertaking as to Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'serious Question to Be Tried' 'partnership Property Allegations' 'cross Vesting Jurisdiction']

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 Applications in Principal Proceedings Alleging a Partnership Business Operating Brothels and Escort Agencies / Notices of Motion for Interlocutory Orders Concerning Caveats and Possible Injunctive Relief Pending Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff established a serious question to be tried about an alleged partnership and interests in land registered in the defendants' names." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured continuing caveats or granting interlocutory injunctive relief.' "Whether the plaintiff's inability to provide an effective undertaking as to damages or security for that undertaking should preclude interlocutory relief." 'Whether the Victorian caveat should be removed under s90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 Vic.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff had established, with reservations, a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favoured denial of interlocutory relief because the plaintiff lacked the resources to satisfy the usual undertaking as to damages, offered no third party undertaking or other security, and there was no evidence that the defendants had engaged or would engage in dissipation of assets. The interests of justice were best served by refusing continuation of the caveats or equivalent injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Application by plaintiff for interlocutory orders, including extended operation of caveats, refused with costs; Victorian caveat ordered to be removed.

Orders

  • ['Order that the interlocutory orders made for the extension of New South Wales caveats AH405201 and AH405191 be discharged.' "Order that the plaintiff's amended notice of motion filed 26 November 2013 otherwise be dismissed." 'Order (pursuant to s90(3) of the Transfer of Land Act 1958 Vic) that the Victorian...