Karimbla Properties (No 50) Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales & Anor [2015] NSWSC 778

Karimbla Properties (No 50) Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales & Anor [2015] NSWSC 778

Karimbla had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for breach of procedural fairness or breach of a process contract such as to justify granting an interlocutory injunction. UrbanGrowth was not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances, owed no enforceable duty of procedural fairness, and the documentation excluded formation of a process contract or implied duty of fair dealing. The potential harm to UrbanGrowth and the tender process from granting an injunction outweighed Karimbla's interests. Both notices of motion were dismissed.

Parties
Plaintiff: Karimbla Properties (No 50) Pty Ltd; First Defendant: State of New South Wales; Second Defendant: Landcom Corporation NSW t/as UrbanGrowth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction, Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Judicial Review, Government Tenders, Contractual Duty of Fair Dealing, Process Contract
Administrative Law Contract Law Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Procedural Fairness Natural Justice Judicial Review Government Tenders +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karimbla Properties (No 50) Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

State of New South Wales

First Defendant

Landcom Corporation NSW t/as UrbanGrowth

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction, Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UrbanGrowth was amenable to judicial review in the conduct of the tender process for public land disposal
  2. 2 Whether UrbanGrowth owed Karimbla procedural fairness/natural justice in the exclusion decision
  3. 3 Whether there was a process contract with an implied term of fair dealing between UrbanGrowth and Karimbla

Ratio Decidendi

Karimbla had not established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for breach of procedural fairness or breach of a process contract such as to justify granting an interlocutory injunction. UrbanGrowth was not amenable to judicial review in the circumstances, owed no enforceable duty of procedural fairness, and the documentation excluded formation of a process contract or implied duty of fair dealing. The potential harm to UrbanGrowth and the tender process from granting an injunction outweighed Karimbla's interests. Both notices of motion were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's notice of motion filed 19 May 2015 be dismissed.
  • The plaintiff's amended notice of motion filed in court on 12 June 2015 be dismissed.