Category Archives: Injunctions

Environmental Law, Injunctions, Planning Law

879B, 881-891 South Dowling Street and 54A, 56-60 O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo

ON 17 JUNE 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Council of the City of Sydney v Karimbla Properties (No. 24) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 77.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172226

The court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction brought by the council against the project managers carrying out building work on a large construction site at 879B, 881-891 South Dowling Street and 54A, 56-60 O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo, despite there being no construction certificate for the works.

Justice Craig ruled that, on the evidence before her, the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the project managers. Craig J’s reasons for refusing the injunction included: there would be a detriment to the construction workforce; no prejudice had been demonstrated; the work appears to have been performed in accordance with the Building Code; the council did not seek demolition; further work will be closely supervised; and outstanding conditions for consent are capable of timely resolution.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Environmental Law, Injunctions, Planning Law

Council of the City of Sydney v Karimbla Properties (No. 24) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 77

ON 17 JUNE 2014, the NSW Land and Environment Court delivered Council of the City of Sydney v Karimbla Properties (No. 24) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWLEC 77.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172226

The court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction brought by the council against the project managers carrying out building work on a large construction site at 879B, 881-891 South Dowling Street and 54A, 56-60 O’Dea Avenue, Waterloo, despite there being no construction certificate for the works.

Justice Craig ruled that, on the evidence before her, the balance of convenience weighed in favour of the project managers. Craig J’s reasons for granting the injunction included: there would be a detriment to the construction workforce; no prejudice had been demonstrated; the work appears to have been performed in accordance with the Building Code; the council did not seek demolition; further work will be closely supervised; and outstanding conditions for consent are capable of timely resolution.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Contempt, Injunctions, LAW FIRM, Sentencing

Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd v McNicol (No 2) [2013] QSC 329

Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd v McNicol (No 2) [2013] QSC 329 (25 November 2013)

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Fitness First Australia v McNicol [2012] QSC 296

Fitness First Australia v McNicol [2012] QSC 296 (2 October 2012)

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Children, Family Law, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Flanagan and Handcock [2000] FamCa 150

Flanagan and Handcock [2000] FamCA 150 (2 March 2000).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2000/150.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Employment Law, Equity, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Patrick Stevedores v MUA [1998] HCA 30

ON THIS DAY in 1998, the High Court of Australia delivered Patrick Stevedores v MUA [1998] HCA 30; 195 CLR 1; 72 ALJR 873; 79 IR 339; 153 ALR 643 (4 May 1998).

The High Court rejected Patrick’s appeal to overturn orders of the Federal Court arising from the waterfront dispute of Easter 1998.

Patrick had locked out its national workforce of about 1400 permanent and 300 part time staff and sought to terminate them on the grounds that their services were no longer required as they were employed by four labour hire companies (restructured in September 1997) that had ceased trading and had been placed under administration whilst Patrick had been involved in the organisation of a non-unionised alternative.

The MUA obtained Federal Court interim injunctions to maintain the pre-Easter status quo and stop the terminations. The effect of the injunctions was to require the specific performance of contracts of service, a remedy which the courts generally do not favour. However, the MUA satisfied the Federal Court that the balance of convenience favoured the relief sought chiefly through undertakings that the workers would refrain from industrial action and not hold the administrators personally liable for their wages and other benefits.

The High Court upheld the Federal Court orders and granted further orders to allow the administrators to properly exercise their functions.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Damages, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Jackson v Sterling Industries [1987] HCA 23

ON 11 JUNE 1987, the High Court of Australia delivered Jackson v Sterling Industries Ltd [1987] HCA 23; (1987) 162 CLR 612 (11 June 1987).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1987/23.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Family Law, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Re Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82

Re Ross-Jones; Ex parte Green [1984] HCA 82; (1984) 156 CLR 185 (6 December 1984).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/156clr185.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Family Law, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Mullane v Mullane [1983] HCA 4

Mullane v Mullane [1983] HCA 4; (1983) 158 CLR 436 (23 February 1983).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/158clr436.html

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Contract, Injunctions, LAW FIRM

Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24

ON 11 MAY 1982, the High Court of Australia delivered Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW [1982] HCA 24; (1982) 149 CLR 337 (11 May 1982).

Codelfa contracted with the State Rail Authority’s predecessor, the NSW Commissioner for Railways, to perform the excavations on Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs railway. It was agreed that Codelfa would perform three shifts per day over a fixed period, but they were unable to meet this requirement because of injunctions brought by local residents.

Codelfa sought damages from the SRA on two grounds: (1) that there was an implied term that if they were restrained by injunctions the SRA would extend time for completion or would indemnify Codelfa for any losses caused by the injunctions; in the alternative, (2) that the contract was frustrated by the injunctions.

Mason J at 352 observed that the “true rule” regarding the admission of evidence of the surrounding circumstances is that such evidence is admissible if the language of the contract is ambiguous or capable of more than one meaning but is not admissible to contradict the language which has a plain meaning.

The court held that there was no implied term. Even if a term needed to be implied to give efficacy to the contract, the was not a term “so obvious it goes without saying”. The court referred with approval to its earlier decision in Secured Income Real Estate (Australia) Ltd v St Martins Investments Pty Ltd [1979] HCA 51; (1979) 144 CLR 596.

Codelfa was nevertheless successful with the court holding that the contract was frustrated because “the performance of the contract in the events which have occurred is radically different from performance of the contract in the circumstances which it, construed in the light of surrounding circumstances, contemplated”.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088