Kurland, R. & Anor v. European Asian of Australia Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 466

Kurland, R. & Anor v. European Asian of Australia Ltd & Ors [1985] FCA 466

The application for interlocutory relief is refused as the applicants failed to provide any detailed evidence in support of their claim, including an affidavit detailing facts alleged to give rise to a claim under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act; accordingly, there is insufficient basis for interlocutory relief.

Parties
Applicant: Richard Kurland; Applicant: Sandra Margaret Kurland; First Respondent: European Asian of Australia Limited; Second Respondent: Erdmann R.G. Vogt; Third Respondent: F.J.A. Brown; Fourth Respondent: John R. Thomas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1985
Procedural Posture
Application and Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Trade Practices Act S.52, Guarantees, Misrepresentation, Forum Convenience, Non Est Factum, Negligence
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Trade Practices Act S.52 Guarantees Misrepresentation Forum Convenience Non Est Factum Negligence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Kurland

Applicant

Sandra Margaret Kurland

Applicant

European Asian of Australia Limited

First Respondent

Erdmann R.G. Vogt

Second Respondent

F.J.A. Brown

Third Respondent

John R. Thomas

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application and Statement of Claim / Interlocutory Application for Injunction Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interlocutory relief should be granted restraining the first respondent from proceeding further in the Supreme Court
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence has been provided by applicants to justify interlocutory relief
  3. 3 Whether an issue under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 justifies grant of interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interlocutory relief is refused as the applicants failed to provide any detailed evidence in support of their claim, including an affidavit detailing facts alleged to give rise to a claim under s.52 of the Trade Practices Act; accordingly, there is insufficient basis for interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application be dismissed with costs.