Action Cycles Pty Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) v Ross

Action Cycles Pty Ltd, through its receivers and managers, brought an action against Ross seeking relief from an interlocutory injunction that restrained the receivers from selling certain mortgaged properties. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the injunction should be stayed pending the outcome of an interlocutory appeal. The appeal concerned the dissolution of the injunction, and the applicant sought a stay to prevent the receivers from selling the properties while the appeal was being heard.

The court considered several factors in determining whether to grant a stay. These factors included the presence of a serious question to be tried, the interest of the parties, and the balance of convenience. The applicant argued that there was a significant dispute regarding the applicable interest rate and the date from which interest payments were due, which impacted the financial viability of the properties. The applicant also contended that the delay in coming to trial was caused by the respondent, which further supported the need for a stay. The court weighed these considerations and determined that there was a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

Based on its analysis, the court concluded that the circumstances warranted a stay of the injunction pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal. The court recognised that the applicant had demonstrated a significant dispute over the interest rates and the timing of interest payments, which could materially affect the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court found that the delay in coming to trial was not due to the applicant, further supporting the grant of the stay. The court granted the injunction, preventing the receivers from selling the mortgaged properties until the appeal was resolved.

The court's decision was that the application for a stay of the order dissolving the interlocutory injunction was successful. The injunction remained in place, preventing the receivers from selling the mortgaged properties pending the outcome of the interlocutory appeal. The court's ruling ensured that the status quo was maintained until the serious questions raised in the appeal were addressed and resolved.