KIAMA DEVELOPMENT v WILCOX [1999] NSWSC 3

KIAMA DEVELOPMENT v WILCOX [1999] NSWSC 3

Existing interlocutory orders should continue until judgment is delivered by Young J because circumstances since reservation of judgment do not justify reopening or urgent hearing of the matter during vacation. The question of illegality under s 226 is not immediately urgent without Crown action and should not interrupt the status quo.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kiama Development Co Pty Ltd; Defendant: Rossana Wilcox & Ors
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 January 1999
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Reserved Judgment; Interlocutory Relief Sought Pending Final Judgment
Outcome
interlocutory injunctions continued; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Practice and Procedure, Injunction, Interlocutory Orders, Sublease, Breach of Covenant
Equity Land Law Practice and Procedure Injunction Interlocutory Orders Sublease Breach of Covenant

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiama Development Co Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Rossana Wilcox & Ors

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Reserved Judgment; Interlocutory Relief Sought Pending Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to continue existing interlocutory restraints until judgment is given
  2. 2 Whether further allegations since judgment was reserved justify reopening or altering existing interlocutory arrangements
  3. 3 Effect of s 226 of the Crown Lands Consolidation Act 1913 on sublease validity

Ratio Decidendi

Existing interlocutory orders should continue until judgment is delivered by Young J because circumstances since reservation of judgment do not justify reopening or urgent hearing of the matter during vacation. The question of illegality under s 226 is not immediately urgent without Crown action and should not interrupt the status quo.

Court Disposition

interlocutory injunctions continued; costs reserved

Orders

  • Orders 3 and 4 of 24 December 1998 are continued in effect upon the defendants' previous undertaking until final determination of these proceedings or earlier further order.
  • The defendants' costs of the notice of motion of 24 December 1998 are defendants' costs in the proceedings.