Liristis v Bank of Western Australia [2002] NSWSC 1119

Liristis v Bank of Western Australia [2002] NSWSC 1119

Although a serious question to be tried was assumed about the validity of the receivers' appointment, the plaintiffs' case appeared weak. The balance of convenience favoured refusal because there was a very large debt outstanding, no payment since late June, no realistic evidence of refinancing, the companies were not trading, and the family home and repair issues did not justify restraining the receivers.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Duty Judge List; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['supreme Court Duty Judge Procedure' 'counsel Time Estimates' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'appointment of Receivers' 'balance of Convenience']
['procedure' 'mortgages' 'receivership'] ['supreme Court Duty Judge Procedure' 'counsel Time Estimates' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'appointment of Receivers' 'balance of Convenience']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Interlocutory Injunction / Duty Judge List; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried about the validity of the appointment of the receivers.' "Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory orders restraining the receivers from acting for 90 days and from taking action in relation to the corporate plaintiffs' assets."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although a serious question to be tried was assumed about the validity of the receivers' appointment, the plaintiffs' case appeared weak. The balance of convenience favoured refusal because there was a very large debt outstanding, no payment since late June, no realistic evidence of refinancing, the companies were not trading, and the family home and repair issues did not justify restraining the receivers.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The costs are the defendants' costs in the cause." 'The matter is stood over to 9.30am on Thursday 21 November 2002 before the Registrar.']