The Drop Zone Skydiving Centre Pty Ltd v Central Coast Aero Club Ltd [2004] NSWSC 1207

The balance of convenience favoured refusal of the interlocutory injunction due to public safety concerns arising from alleged breaches of essential safety requirements by the Plaintiff; the Court found serious issues to be tried but determined that an injunction should not be granted at this stage.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Plaintiff: The Drop Zone Skydiving Centre Pty Ltd; Defendant: Central Coast Aero Club Ltd
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 December 2004
Procedural Posture: Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing
Outcome: Application for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics: Interlocutory Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Public Safety

Equity Interlocutory Injunctions Balance of Convenience Public Safety

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

The Drop Zone Skydiving Centre Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Central Coast Aero Club Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Hearing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Plaintiff breached conditions of consent relating to safety regulations
2 Whether the Defendant was entitled to suspend Plaintiff's parachuting operations
3 Whether there is an enforceable contract between the parties

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

Application for interlocutory injunction refused
Matter stood into the Expedition List for 3 December 2004

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.