Barham v Barham

In Barham v Barham, the plaintiff and defendant were joint tenants of a property. The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from severing the joint tenancy into a tenancy-in-common. The plaintiff alleged that she had reached an understanding with the defendant not to sever the joint tenancy and sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from doing so. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established a case for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from severing the joint tenancy. The court needed to consider the evidence of the alleged understanding between the parties and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The court found that the plaintiff had not established a case for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence of the alleged understanding was not sufficient to establish a case for the injunction. The court also found that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, as the defendant had a legitimate interest in severing the joint tenancy. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the potential harm to her if the defendant severed the joint tenancy outweighed the potential harm to the defendant if the injunction was granted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a case for the injunction and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction. The court ordered that the defendant be at liberty to sever the joint tenancy.