Willyama Broken Hill Motor Inn Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 693

Willyama Broken Hill Motor Inn Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 693

The defendants' statement that there was no present intention to transfer the hotelier's licence, coupled with an assertion that they could take appropriate steps if a transfer became required or desirable in the future, did not constitute a threat of future activity sufficient to justify an interlocutory quia timet injunction. The circumstances were distinguishable from Meyers v Casey because there was no patent threat comparable to the threatened expulsion in that case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Quia Timet Injunction / Motion to Extend Ex Parte Injunction Granted on 30 June 2006
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['injunctions' 'interlocutory Quia Timet Injunction' 'liquor Licence Transfer' 'lease Covenants']
['procedure' 'equity'] ['injunctions' 'interlocutory Quia Timet Injunction' 'liquor Licence Transfer' 'lease Covenants']

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 Quia Timet Injunction / Motion to Extend Ex Parte Injunction Granted on 30 June 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a statement that the defendants had no present intention to transfer the hotelier's licence, but would take such steps as thought appropriate if a transfer became required or desirable in future, was sufficient to ground an interlocutory quia timet injunction." 'Whether there was a serious issue to be tried as to breach of an express or implied lease covenant if the liquor licence were transferred so that it could not be re-transferred to the plaintiff at the conclusion of the lease.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' statement that there was no present intention to transfer the hotelier's licence, coupled with an assertion that they could take appropriate steps if a transfer became required or desirable in the future, did not constitute a threat of future activity sufficient to justify an interlocutory quia timet injunction. The circumstances were distinguishable from Meyers v Casey because there was no patent threat comparable to the threatened expulsion in that case.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The injunction granted on 30 June 2006 was not extended.' 'The motion was dismissed.' "The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of the motion." 'The matter was stood over before the Registrar at 9.30 am on Tuesday 25 July 2006.']