Bond v Gray

In the matter of Bond v Gray, the parties were involved in a dispute regarding a proposed development on property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Bond, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, Gray, from proceeding with the proposed development on the property. The defendant, Gray, lodged a caveat against the property, which was the subject of the dispute.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had provided an effective undertaking as to damages and whether the absence of security for the undertaking was a factor in determining the balance of convenience. The court had to consider the nature of the relief sought and whether the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff in this instance.

The court held that the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages was not effective as it did not provide sufficient security. The court also noted that the absence of security for the undertaking was a significant factor in determining the balance of convenience. The court found that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff and dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the caveat lodged by the defendant should remain in place until the final determination of the proceedings.

The court made no orders for costs.