Assaf & Anor v Skalkos & Anor [1999] NSWSC 390

Assaf & Anor v Skalkos & Anor [1999] NSWSC 390

The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff did not establish a clear entitlement to such relief, damages were considered an adequate remedy, and there was insufficient basis to find that the balance of convenience warranted restraint upon the defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory (application Heard and Determined)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['injunctive Relief' 'defamation Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'public Interest']
['defamation'] ['injunctive Relief' 'defamation Damages' 'balance of Convenience' 'public Interest']

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 (application Heard and Determined)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted to restrain publication of alleged defamatory material' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiff' 'Whether the matters complained of are of public interest']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff did not establish a clear entitlement to such relief, damages were considered an adequate remedy, and there was insufficient basis to find that the balance of convenience warranted restraint upon the defendant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory injunction is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs." 'The Amended Statement of Claim is stood over to the Defamation List on 30 April.']