Crossman v PILT Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 557

Crossman v PILT Nominees Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 557

The plaintiff raised serious questions to be tried as to both standing and whether the proposed borrowing would breach the PILT Trust. Those issues were not suitable for determination on the interlocutory application. The balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief because the plaintiff's asserted rights would or could be seriously compromised by the proposed $11.5 million borrowing, while there was no evidence of substantial inconvenience to the defendants if the injunction were granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Trusts and Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted.
Legal Topics
['trusts and Trustees' 'standing of Beneficiary to Sue' 'discretionary Beneficiaries' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'balance of Convenience']
['equity' 'trusts' 'civil Procedure'] ['trusts and Trustees' 'standing of Beneficiary to Sue' 'discretionary Beneficiaries' '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

Equity Proceeding Concerning Trusts and Interlocutory Injunctive Relief / Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff had an arguable standing to seek injunctive relief concerning the PILT Trust despite not being a beneficiary of that trust.' 'Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the proposed $11.5 million borrowing by the trustee would be a breach of the PILT Trust.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting interlocutory injunctive relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff raised serious questions to be tried as to both standing and whether the proposed borrowing would breach the PILT Trust. Those issues were not suitable for determination on the interlocutory application. The balance of convenience favoured injunctive relief because the plaintiff's asserted rights would or could be seriously compromised by the proposed $11.5 million borrowing, while there was no evidence of substantial inconvenience to the defendants if the injunction were granted.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted.

Orders

  • ['Orders in accordance with form of order initialled by Hamilton J and placed with the papers.' 'Leave granted to the defendants to apply to discharge or vary the injunction in relation to a borrowing proposal different from the proposed $11.5 million borrowing in evidence.']