Maharaja’s Palace Pty Ltd v Raj & Jai Construction Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 191

Maharaja’s Palace Pty Ltd v Raj & Jai Construction Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 191

Although the appeal is considered to be weak, it is reasonably arguable; the balance of convenience favours continuing interlocutory injunctive relief as the prejudice to the landlord does not outweigh the damage to the tenant's business, employees, and customers if possession is lost prior to the appeal hearing.

Parties
First Appellant: Maharaja's Palace Pty Ltd; Second Appellant: B&B Group Pty Ltd; Third Appellant: Satinder Pal Singh Benepal; Respondent: Raj & Jai Construction Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Application Pending Appeal
Outcome
Interlocutory injunctive relief continued pending appeal.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctive Relief, Balance of Convenience, Oral Agreement to Lease, Part Performance, Possession Pending Appeal
Civil Procedure Equity Property Law Interlocutory Injunctive Relief Balance of Convenience Oral Agreement to Lease Part Performance Possession Pending Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maharaja's Palace Pty Ltd

First Appellant

B&B Group Pty Ltd

Second Appellant

Satinder Pal Singh Benepal

Third Appellant

Raj & Jai Construction Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Application Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be granted pending an appeal.
  2. 2 Whether refusal of injunctive relief would cause prejudice rendering any appeal nugatory.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal is reasonably arguable in light of evidence and findings at trial.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the appeal is considered to be weak, it is reasonably arguable; the balance of convenience favours continuing interlocutory injunctive relief as the prejudice to the landlord does not outweigh the damage to the tenant's business, employees, and customers if possession is lost prior to the appeal hearing.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunctive relief continued pending appeal.

Orders

  • Usual undertaking as to damages by appellants is noted.
  • Order 2 made by Justice Kunc on 24 August 2018 (restraining respondent from re-entering and taking possession of specified shops at 14-18 Douglas Road, Quakers Hill) is continued until further order.