Ashton v Australian Cruising Yacht Co Pty Ltd

The applicant, David Ashton, is an amateur boat builder who occupies a site at the Maylands Boat Yard. He has commenced legal proceedings seeking, among other things, an injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating his licence to occupy the site. The defendant is the current lessee of the Maylands Boat Yard and has sought to terminate the applicant's licence to occupy a site at the Yard. The applicant contends that the defendant is bound by a licence agreement negotiated with the previous lessee of the Yard that includes a condition forbidding revocation until completion of his boat. The applicant also contends that it was an implied term of the licence that the defendant would not terminate the licence without reasonable cause. The defendant contends that the applicant's licence was terminated by the previous lessee's assignment of its leasehold estate and that the applicant's claim fails because of the doctrine of privity of contract. The defendant also contends that even if the applicant's licence was not terminated by assignment, the applicant's licence agreement does not contain the terms contended for by the applicant. The defendant further contends that the balance of convenience weighs against the grant of an injunction. The application was dismissed. In the absence of any explicit reference to the applicant being allowed to complete his boat, the words relied on by the applicant are not sufficient to create the promissory obligation contended for. In any event, the applicant's licence was terminated by the previous lessee's assignment of its leasehold estate. The applicant's claim fails because of the doctrine of privity of contract. Even if the applicant's licence was not terminated by assignment, the applicant's licence agreement does not contain the terms contended for by the applicant. Further, the balance of convenience weighs against the grant of an injunction.