Maiolo v Caristo [2008] NSWSC 236

Maiolo v Caristo [2008] NSWSC 236

Plaintiffs’ claim for interlocutory injunction is weak to marginal; no evidence of apprehended dissipation or threat to property by defendant. Balance of convenience favours refusal of injunctive relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['family Provision Act' 'notional Estate' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience']
['succession Law'] ['family Provision Act' 'notional Estate' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted restraining the defendant from dealing with residential property pending trial under Family Provision Act' 'Strength of claim for bringing property into notional estate']

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs’ claim for interlocutory injunction is weak to marginal; no evidence of apprehended dissipation or threat to property by defendant. Balance of convenience favours refusal of injunctive relief.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application in para 6 of the summons filed on 5 March 2008 is refused with costs.']