Slattery v Dunn & Anor [2023] NSWSC 1205

Slattery v Dunn & Anor [2023] NSWSC 1205

Interim injunctive relief was appropriate because the evidence showed a serious question to be tried that the proposed works may involve unlawful trespass on the plaintiff's land and may constitute a nuisance, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the position for a short period given the irrevocable destruction of the fence, the risk arising from the plaintiff's two large dogs needing confinement, and the plaintiff's usual undertaking as to damages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Urgent Application by Summons for an Interim Injunction / Interim Application in the Equity Duty List
Outcome
Injunction granted under s 66 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['interim Injunctions' 'trespass to Land' 'nuisance' 'dividing Fence' 'urgent Ex Parte Relief' 'service']
['equity' 'property Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['interim Injunctions' 'trespass to Land' 'nuisance' 'dividing Fence' 'urgent Ex Parte Relief' 'service']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Urgent Application by Summons for an Interim Injunction / Interim Application in the Equity Duty List

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted to restrain the defendants from trespassing or entering on the plaintiff's property and interfering with or damaging the existing dividing fence." "Whether there was a serious question to be tried that the defendants' proposed works may involve unlawful trespass on the plaintiff's land or constitute a nuisance." 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured short-term injunctive relief.']

Ratio Decidendi

Interim injunctive relief was appropriate because the evidence showed a serious question to be tried that the proposed works may involve unlawful trespass on the plaintiff's land and may constitute a nuisance, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the position for a short period given the irrevocable destruction of the fence, the risk arising from the plaintiff's two large dogs needing confinement, and the plaintiff's usual undertaking as to damages.

Court Disposition

Injunction granted under s 66 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['Upon the undertaking of the Plaintiff to pay the requisite filing fee or obtaining deferment of payment of that fee from the Registry, grant leave to the Plaintiff to file in Court the Summons and Notice of Motion dated 7 October 2023, the affidavit of Rhonda Slattery dated 7 October 2023 and Exhibit RS-1 to that...