AE Brighton Holdings Pty Ltd v UDP Holdings Pty Ltd

AE Brighton Holdings Pty Ltd applied for an interlocutory injunction to prevent UDP Holdings Pty Ltd from selling residential property that was mortgaged to the applicant. The application was heard and dismissed by a judge in the Trial Division. Following the dismissal, AE Brighton Holdings Pty Ltd applied for an interlocutory injunction pending the filing, hearing, and determination of an application for leave to appeal. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a serious question to be tried on the merits and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court considered the applicant's case, which was that the mortgagee sale was improper because the mortgagee had failed to provide the mortgagor with the appropriate notices and documents required by law. The court found that the applicant had not established a serious question to be tried on the merits and that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of the injunction. The application for interlocutory injunction pending leave to appeal was dismissed. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that it was likely to succeed on appeal and that the applicant had not shown that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court noted that the applicant had not provided evidence of the alleged failures by the mortgagee and that the applicant had not shown that the sale would cause irreparable harm. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sale would have a significant impact on the applicant's business or financial position. The court dismissed the application for interlocutory injunction pending leave to appeal.