Rook CMIT Pty Limited v Phuoc Trieu [2017] NSWSC 1001

Rook CMIT Pty Limited v Phuoc Trieu [2017] NSWSC 1001

The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that, if the deed of settlement was proved to have been made on 4 May 2015, it would support Rook CMIT's claim to an equitable lease for the balance of the option term, and the defendant's asserted defences did not defeat that case at the interlocutory stage. Given the defendant's conduct since 4 May 2015 and the risk of further attempts to interfere with Rook CMIT's claimed lease rights, interlocutory injunctive relief maintaining the status quo was necessary until further order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief in Equity Commercial List Proceedings Seeking Specific Performance / Interlocutory; in Substance Ex Parte After the Hearing Could Not Proceed Because the Defendant Was Unable to Attend
Outcome
Grant interlocutory relief as sought.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'ex Parte Application' 'equitable Lease' 'lease Option Renewal' 'specific Performance' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'status Quo Preservation']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'property Law' 'contract Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'ex Parte Application' 'equitable Lease' 'lease Option Renewal' 'specific Performance' 'quiet Enjoyment' 'status Quo Preservation']

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

Interlocutory Application for Injunctive Relief in Equity Commercial List Proceedings Seeking Specific Performance / Interlocutory; in Substance Ex Parte After the Hearing Could Not Proceed Because the Defendant Was Unable to Attend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie or good arguable case for final relief based on the deed of settlement and claimed equitable lease.' 'Whether interlocutory injunctive relief was necessary to maintain the status quo pending final resolution.' "Whether the defendant's asserted defences, including alleged forgery, non est factum, duress, unclean hands, breaches of the deed, and reliance on notices, prevented interlocutory relief."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that, if the deed of settlement was proved to have been made on 4 May 2015, it would support Rook CMIT's claim to an equitable lease for the balance of the option term, and the defendant's asserted defences did not defeat that case at the interlocutory stage. Given the defendant's conduct since 4 May 2015 and the risk of further attempts to interfere with Rook CMIT's claimed lease rights, interlocutory injunctive relief maintaining the status quo was necessary until further order.

Court Disposition

Grant interlocutory relief as sought.

Orders

  • ['Note that the plaintiffs by counsel give to the Court the usual undertaking as to damages.' 'Order that until the further order of the Court the defendant be restrained from, by himself, his servants or agents or otherwise, retaking possession of premises being the land and improvements comprised in folio...