Arys Health Pty Ltd v Le

The case involves Arys Health Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, against Le, the first defendant, concerning an application for an interlocutory injunction to gain access to sub-leased premises. The dispute arose in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to access the premises for maintenance and repairs, alleging that the first defendant had interfered with their rights of quiet enjoyment by locking them out. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of interference with their rights, whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and if damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court considered the conflicting evidence regarding the circumstances under which the sub-lease was signed. The plaintiff claimed that the sub-lease was entered into under duress and that the first defendant had since refused access to the premises. The first defendant argued that the sub-lease was valid and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any interference with their rights of quiet enjoyment. The court evaluated the evidence and found that while the plaintiff had not conclusively established the invalidity of the sub-lease, there were sufficient grounds to believe that the sub-lease might be unlawful. The court further considered the balance of convenience, noting that the plaintiff's inability to access the premises for maintenance and repairs could cause significant harm to their business operations, whereas the first defendant's position would not be unduly prejudiced by the grant of limited injunctive relief.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the validity of the sub-lease and the potential harm to the plaintiff's business, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court also found that damages were not an adequate remedy in this instance, as the harm caused by the plaintiff's inability to access the premises could not be fully compensated by monetary damages alone. The court granted limited injunctive relief, permitting the plaintiff to enter the premises for the purpose of carrying out necessary maintenance and repairs. The court emphasised the importance of the plaintiff proceeding with the main proceedings to resolve the validity of the sub-lease.