Stack, L.E. & Ors v Coast Securities No 9. Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 47

Stack, L.E. & Ors v Coast Securities No 9. Pty Ltd [1983] FCA 47

The applications for interlocutory injunctions are refused; the applicants established an arguable case of contravention, but the evidence and circumstances did not justify jurisdictional intervention at this stage or the grant of such relief. Questions of exclusive jurisdiction remain arguable and the Supreme Court is able to determine its own jurisdiction and afford relief. The balance of convenience does not favour granting interlocutory injunctions.

Parties
Applicant: L.E. Stack; Applicant: Wenlowe Pty Ltd and Anor; Applicant: Wenlowe Pty Ltd; Applicant: R. Mackie and Staff (VIC) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Coast Securities No. 9 Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 March 1983
Procedural Posture
Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory Decision (injunctions Refused)
Outcome
Applications for interlocutory injunction refused with liberty to reapply if necessary.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Interlocutory Injunction, Federal Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Jurisdictional Conflict
Trade Practices Jurisdiction Equity Misrepresentation Interlocutory Injunction Federal Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Jurisdictional Conflict

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L.E. Stack

Applicant

Wenlowe Pty Ltd and Anor

Applicant

Wenlowe Pty Ltd

Applicant

R. Mackie and Staff (VIC) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Coast Securities No. 9 Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Applications for Interlocutory Injunctions / Interlocutory Decision (injunctions Refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether misrepresentations in the sale of home units constituted contravention of ss 52, 53(aa), and 53A of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction over 'matters' involving the Trade Practices Act
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunctions should issue to restrain proceedings or enforcement of judgments in the Supreme Court of Queensland

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for interlocutory injunctions are refused; the applicants established an arguable case of contravention, but the evidence and circumstances did not justify jurisdictional intervention at this stage or the grant of such relief. Questions of exclusive jurisdiction remain arguable and the Supreme Court is able to determine its own jurisdiction and afford relief. The balance of convenience does not favour granting interlocutory injunctions.

Court Disposition

Applications for interlocutory injunction refused with liberty to reapply if necessary.

Orders

  • The present application for an interlocutory injunction be refused with liberty to the applicant to reapply if it becomes necessary or appropriate to do so.
  • The applicant pay to the respondent its taxed costs of and incidental to the proceedings herein to date.