Bradto Pty Ltd v State of Victoria

Bradto Pty Ltd has brought an application for an interlocutory injunction against the State of Victoria. The dispute arises from the State's desire to inspect and sample certain premises under a Crown lease. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction. Furthermore, the court had to determine whether the injunction should be prohibitory or mandatory, and the appropriate test for granting a mandatory injunction in Victoria. The court also had to decide whether the grant of the injunction would be tantamount to final relief and if so, whether the applicant needed to show a higher degree of likelihood of success at trial. Additionally, the form and clarity of the order were considered.

The court examined whether the State of Victoria, as the lessor, was permitted to enter the premises to inspect their state and condition. It considered whether the State of Victoria was the Crown in right of Victoria and if the buildings erected on the land formed part of the demised premises. The court also explored whether the right of the lessor to examine the premises allowed the lessor to carry out sampling. Furthermore, the Revocation and Excision of Crown Reservations Act 1955 (Vic) was analysed in the context of the case. The court also addressed the constitutional law issue concerning the Crown, the Crown in right of Victoria, and the relationship between the terms "Crown," "State," "Governor," and "Executive Government."

The court determined that a serious question to be tried was made out and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court found that the injunction should be mandatory in nature. The appropriate test for granting a mandatory injunction in Victoria was considered to be a "lesser risk of injustice" rather than a "high degree of assurance." The court held that the grant of the injunction was not tantamount to final relief. Therefore, the applicant was not required to show a higher degree of likelihood of success at trial. The form and clarity of the order were deemed to be sufficient.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction, prohibiting the State of Victoria from entering the premises or conducting any inspections or sampling until the substantive proceedings were concluded.