Waverley Council v Crystal Carwash Pty Limited & 2 Ors [2011] NSWLEC 41

Waverley Council v Crystal Carwash Pty Limited & 2 Ors [2011] NSWLEC 41

The balance of convenience clearly favours granting the injunction, as no Respondent is prejudiced by the court insisting on the regularisation of communications with potential witnesses, and the evidence indicated a real risk of interference and intimidation.

Parties
Applicant: Waverley Council; First Respondent: Crystal Carwash Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Crystal Carwash Cafe Pty Limited; Third Respondent: Anthony Sahade
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ex Parte Application for Urgent Injunction
Outcome
Interim ex parte injunction granted; balance of motion stood over; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Witness Intimidation, Ex Parte Procedure
Environmental Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Witness Intimidation Ex Parte Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waverley Council

Applicant

Crystal Carwash Pty Limited

First Respondent

Crystal Carwash Cafe Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Anthony Sahade

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ex Parte Application for Urgent Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an urgent interlocutory injunction should be granted to prohibit the Respondents from communicating with or intimidating potential witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience clearly favours granting the injunction, as no Respondent is prejudiced by the court insisting on the regularisation of communications with potential witnesses, and the evidence indicated a real risk of interference and intimidation.

Court Disposition

Interim ex parte injunction granted; balance of motion stood over; costs reserved

Orders

  • Until 5pm on 25 March 2011, Respondents not to communicate (other than via legal representatives/acoustic expert) with specified witnesses regarding proceedings; not to threaten, intimidate, or harass them.
  • Motion stood over to 25 March 2011 before Duty Judge.