Awad v Hardie (No. 3)

The case of Awad v Hardie (No. 3) involved the applicants, Mr Awad and Mrs Awad, against the respondent, Mr Hardie. The dispute arose from an earlier judgment in which the applicants were granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with their property. The applicants sought to extend the injunction, which the respondent opposed. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to an extension of the interlocutory injunction. The court had to consider whether the applicants had established that the requirements for such an extension were met, namely, that there was a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction. The court also had to determine whether the applicants had discharged the onus of proving that the respondent had breached the existing injunction.

The court found that the applicants had not established a serious question to be tried on the merits. The court was satisfied that the existing evidence did not support the grant of an extended injunction. Additionally, the court found that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicants. The court noted that the respondent had taken steps to comply with the existing injunction and that there was no clear evidence that the respondent intended to continue to interfere with the applicants' property. The court concluded that the applicants had not discharged the onus of proving that the respondent had breached the existing injunction.

As a result of the findings, the application for an extension of the interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court held that the applicants had not met the necessary criteria for such an extension and that there was no justification for varying the existing terms of the injunction.