Bontempo v Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd

The case of Bontempo v Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between the vendor, Bontempo, and the purchaser, Mirvac (WA) Pty Ltd, in relation to a deposit for the sale of property. The dispute arose after the purchaser failed to settle the purchase price, leading the vendor to seek an interlocutory injunction to prevent the bank guarantee provided as a substitute for the deposit from being called on. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the court should grant an interlocutory injunction to prevent the bank guarantee from being called and whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the vendor if the guarantee was called. The vendor argued that the bank guarantee was a critical aspect of the sale agreement and that an injunction was necessary to protect its interests. The purchaser, on the other hand, contended that the guarantee was intended to secure the vendor's financial interests and that damages would be an adequate remedy if the guarantee were called.

The court considered the principles of equity and the nature of the remedy sought. It noted that the vendor had an arguable case for relief and that there was a serious question to be tried. However, the court also found that damages would be an adequate remedy for the vendor if the guarantee were called, and that the balance of convenience favoured the purchaser. The court held that an interlocutory injunction would not be appropriate in these circumstances, and thus refused the application to extend the interim injunction to trial.

In summary, the court denied the vendor's application to extend the interim injunction, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy for the vendor if the guarantee were called. This decision underscores the importance of assessing the adequacy of alternative remedies when considering interlocutory relief in property sale disputes.