Murray & Anor v Tovock Enterprises Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 377

Murray & Anor v Tovock Enterprises Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 377

Plaintiffs not entitled to interlocutory relief as holding over required defendant's consent, which was lawfully withheld, and no evidence showed defendant impeded sale or approval of entitlements. Damages would be adequate remedy if loss proven.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Equity Property / Interlocutory Application for Relief
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief refused
Legal Topics
["hotelier's Licence" 'poker Machine Entitlements' 'leasehold Interests' 'holding Over Under Lease' 'consent to Holding Over' 'injunctive/interlocutory Relief']
['property Law' 'equity' 'licensing Law'] ["hotelier's Licence" 'poker Machine Entitlements' 'leasehold Interests' 'holding Over Under Lease' 'consent to Holding Over' 'injunctive/interlocutory Relief']

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

Procedural Posture

Equity Property / Interlocutory Application for Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiffs are entitled to interlocutory relief maintaining possession of hotel premises after lease expiry to preserve alleged interests in poker machine entitlements' 'Whether defendant wrongfully withheld consent to holding over under lease' 'Whether defendant impeded sale of poker machine entitlements or approval by the Liquor Administration Board' 'Whether the plaintiffs have any legal or equitable interest in the poker machine entitlements after the lease terminates' 'Whether damages would be an adequate remedy']

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs not entitled to interlocutory relief as holding over required defendant's consent, which was lawfully withheld, and no evidence showed defendant impeded sale or approval of entitlements. Damages would be adequate remedy if loss proven.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief refused

Orders

  • ['Application for interlocutory relief dismissed' "Proceedings stood over to Registrar's list at 9:30 am on 26 April 2005" 'Costs of application reserved']