Alamin v Islam

The applicant, Alamin, sought leave to appeal from costs orders made by the primary judge following the dismissal of an application for mandatory interlocutory injunctive relief. The parties had previously entered into a deed settling litigation, under which the applicant covenanted to pay $3.25 million to the respondent in tranches, with shares in a related company charged as security. The applicant subsequently sought rectification of the deed and release of the charge, or a declaration that the deed was void ab initio due to a mistake alleged to have generated an equity of rectification concerning the effect of the charge on other financing arrangements.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in refusing the interlocutory injunctive relief sought by the applicant. This required the court to consider whether the applicant had identified a question of principle of general importance, or an injustice, or an error going beyond one that was merely arguable, to justify granting leave to appeal from the costs orders.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no issue of principle of general importance raised by the applicant's case. The court determined that the applicant had not demonstrated that the primary judge's refusal of interlocutory injunctive relief involved an error that warranted appellate intervention, nor had it established a case of injustice or a question of general importance.

Consequently, the summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.