Physical Disability Council of NSW v Sydney City Council [1999] FCA 112
The balance of convenience is against intervening by granting an interlocutory injunction, given the likelihood of imminent destruction of the bridge regardless, the expense to the respondent, and the greater prospects for non-litigious solutions.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 February 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['disability Discrimination' 'interlocutory Injunctions' 'disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth)' 'balance of Convenience' 'hreoc Interim Determination']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to preserve a pedestrian bridge' 'Whether the Commission erred in its interim determination by imposing a high burden for interim relief' "Whether the Commission failed to fully consider the applicant's case on the balance of convenience"]
Ratio Decidendi
The balance of convenience is against intervening by granting an interlocutory injunction, given the likelihood of imminent destruction of the bridge regardless, the expense to the respondent, and the greater prospects for non-litigious solutions.
Court Disposition
Application for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Orders
- ['The application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed.' 'The matter be stood over for further directions on Friday 19 February 1999.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment