The Trust Company (Australia) Ltd v NextDC Ltd [2018] NSWSC 736

The Trust Company (Australia) Ltd v NextDC Ltd [2018] NSWSC 736

The plaintiffs failed to show sufficient urgency or necessity to warrant a mandatory interlocutory injunction. There were unresolved issues of construction and fact regarding the lease's access provisions, and no extraordinary factors existed on the balance of convenience to justify interlocutory relief. Granting such relief would have irreversible consequences to the defendant’s claimed entitlement to refuse access.

Parties
First Plaintiff: The Trust Company (Australia) Limited; Second Plaintiff: Asia Pacific Data Centre Limited; Defendant: NextDC Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Motion for Mandatory Injunction
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Landlord and Tenant, Construction of Lease, Access to Leased Property
Equity Real Property Interlocutory Injunctions Landlord and Tenant Construction of Lease Access to Leased Property

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Trust Company (Australia) Limited

First Plaintiff

Asia Pacific Data Centre Limited

Second Plaintiff

NextDC Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceeding (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Motion for Mandatory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction permitting their nominated valuer access to leased premises under the terms of the lease.
  2. 2 Whether the construction of the lease prevents the landlord's access or requires the tenant to act reasonably in granting consent.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to show sufficient urgency or necessity to warrant a mandatory interlocutory injunction. There were unresolved issues of construction and fact regarding the lease's access provisions, and no extraordinary factors existed on the balance of convenience to justify interlocutory relief. Granting such relief would have irreversible consequences to the defendant’s claimed entitlement to refuse access.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' motion dismissed

Orders

  • Order that the plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 8 May 2018 be dismissed.
  • Order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of the motion.