26 Nov 2021
The Court granted the s 320 order because the applicant produced an adequate bond from Trade Guarantee + Surety Ltd to secure indemnity obligations and the proposed order contained appropriate conditions; the order was limited to the named respondents who opposed or took no steps and was not extended to respondents who merely consented but did not specifically consent to the proposed order.
13 Nov 2020
An interim injunction was granted to require reconnection of power and reinstatement of access because there was a serious question to be tried regarding the right to water under easements, the balance of convenience favoured preventing likely irreparable harm to crops, and the adequacy of damages was secured by the applicants' undertaking and payment arrangements.
29 Oct 2020
Although an arguable implied term existed obliging the vendor to provide reasonable access for due diligence, Melco failed to establish an arguable causal link that any default by the vendor caused Melco's inability to fulfil or waive the due diligence condition before it expired; there was insufficient evidence that access on the disputed date would have produced a timely report or led Melco to confirm or waive the condition, so the vendor validly cancelled and the caveat cannot be maintained.
3 Jul 2017
Appellant was in possession on 11 May 2009; the respondents' unilateral refusal to provide an access card (and continued insistence on unlawful protocol/deposits) unlawfully excluded the appellant and constituted trespass (and alternatively private nuisance); the exclusion caused loss recoverable from 11 May 2009 until access was restored on 15 December 2014.
29 Jun 2016
BEMA failed to prove it was in possession of the unit at the relevant time (May 2009) so trespass could not be established; nuisance was not made out because there was no sufficient interference with BEMA's access or emanation from defendants' property and BEMA lacked the requisite proprietary interest; the body corporate's claim for levy recovery costs is not appropriate in this proceeding and must be pursued in the Tenancy Tribunal as previously indicated by the Court; accordingly both the plaintiff's claim and the counterclaim fail.
9 Oct 2014
The Supreme Court held r 3.10 did not authorise requiring owners to sign the Protocol or pay a security deposit as a precondition to access and the Unit Titles Act did not provide power to impose those measures outside the formal rule‑making process; the Protocol amounted to impermissible informal rule‑making and, on the facts, the respondents committed an actionable trespass by ousting the owner from common property and denying access; the appellant was not obliged to mitigate by accepting the contested Protocol and unsecured deposit; High Court damages reinstated.
30 Nov 2009
The 2008 and 2009 amendments to rule 3.10 were ultra vires because they purported to add or expand powers properly within the scope of Schedule 2 and therefore required unanimous resolution under s37(3); having been passed by majority they are invalid, and the body corporate and its agent cannot rely on them to deny proprietors access to their units.
12 Nov 2008
The Court granted a limited interim injunction preventing defendants from taking steps to prevent access to and from the property by the applicant, his partner, medical advisers (including a caregiver) and any lawyer instructed by the applicant because the applicant demonstrated urgent medical and litigation needs and the balance of convenience favoured controlled access subject to conditions to mitigate health and safety risks.