Bali v Sweeney

In the Federal Court of Australia, Bali sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent Sweeney, the mortgagee, from selling a property. The central issue was whether the power of sale had been triggered, which would allow Sweeney to proceed with the sale. The court was tasked with determining whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an injunction and whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of the power of sale.

The court examined the terms of the mortgage and the conditions that needed to be met for the power of sale to be activated. It was noted that there was evidence suggesting that the triggering conditions might have been met, raising a serious question to be tried. However, the court also considered the potential harm that an injunction could cause to both parties and the public interest in having disputes resolved efficiently. The balance of convenience was found to lie in favour of Sweeney, as an injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the mortgagee and delay the resolution of the underlying dispute.

In conclusion, the court held that the serious question to be tried regarding the power of sale was not sufficient to warrant an interlocutory injunction. The balance of convenience did not favour granting relief, and the application was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of preserving the integrity of the mortgagee's rights and the need for an efficient resolution of the dispute.