Anthony John Bradstreet v Merrin Developments Pty Ltd

In the matter of Anthony John Bradstreet and others v Merrin Developments Pty Ltd and others, the dispute before the court was the appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs, who had entered into contracts to purchase apartments off-the-plan from Merrin Developments Pty Ltd. The company had an option to purchase the land but failed to exercise it, allowing Beachmere Property Group, an entity linked to Merrin, to acquire the land. Beachmere intended to sell the apartments at a higher price. The plaintiffs sought to continue an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, arguing a prima facie case of unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, and contended that the injunction should not be discharged due to the plaintiffs’ undertaking as to damages. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case to support the continuation of the injunction, whether there was utility in continuing the injunction, and whether the injunction should be discharged due to an alleged lack of worth in the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of unconscionable conduct. It held that the plaintiffs need not individually establish their financial capacity to meet a compensation order if they were unsuccessful at the final hearing, but rather could collectively provide an undertaking as to damages. The court considered that the plaintiffs had paid a significant sum of money to the defendants, providing a form of security, and that the defendants had willingly entered into contracts with the plaintiffs, suggesting that the plaintiffs had the financial means to meet their obligations. The court also found that the risk of the plaintiffs being unable to meet a compensation order was not a conclusive factor against the grant of an injunction. The court determined that the injunction should be continued due to the strength of the plaintiffs' case, the risk taken by the defendants, and the nature of the prima facie case established.

The court dismissed the application to discharge the interlocutory injunction and ordered that the injunction against the defendants be maintained. The court also directed that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.