Aurora Australasia Pty Limited v Hunt Prosperity Pty Limited

Aurora Australasia Pty Limited sued Hunt Prosperity Pty Limited in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Aurora, the plaintiff, sought to redeem its units in a unit trust, while Hunt, the second defendant, sought to continue an interlocutory injunction that restrained Aurora from making payment to it upon the notice of redemption. Hunt alleged that Aurora had granted security over the proceeds of the units being redeemed to secure the repayment of a debt due to it. The case involved an application to continue the injunctive relief and whether there was a serious question to be tried, as well as whether the injunctive relief should be discharged on account of nondisclosure at the time of an ex parte application.

The court had to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the security interest claimed by Hunt over the proceeds of the units being redeemed. The court also had to decide whether the injunctive relief should be discharged due to nondisclosure at the time of the ex parte application. The court considered the evidence provided by the parties and the relevant legal principles. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence and extent of the security interest claimed by Hunt. The court also found that the nondisclosure did not warrant the discharge of the injunctive relief, as it did not affect the merits of the case.

The court granted the application to continue the injunctive relief, subject to certain conditions. The court ordered that the injunctive relief would continue until the trial of the case, but that Aurora could make the payment to the extent that it was not secured by the alleged security interest. The court also ordered that Hunt would have to provide further particulars of the security interest and the amount claimed. The court further ordered that the case would proceed on an expedited basis, given the urgency of the matter.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Victoria granted the application to continue the interlocutory injunction, subject to certain conditions. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence and extent of the security interest claimed by Hunt, and that the nondisclosure did not warrant the discharge of the injunctive relief. The court ordered that the case would proceed on an expedited basis, given the urgency of the matter.