Carlovers Carwash Limited and 5 Ors v Sahathevan

The respondents in this matter were the first to commence proceedings against the applicants, claiming unpaid wages and other entitlements. The applicants then filed a cross-claim against the respondents, seeking compensation for breach of contract and other claims. The respondents applied for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the applicants from disposing of assets and funds, which was granted. The applicants then sought to discharge the injunction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their cross-claim to justify discharging the interlocutory injunction. The court also needed to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicants in light of the potential prejudice to the respondents if the injunction was discharged.

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their cross-claim. The court was not persuaded that the applicants had established a valid defence to the respondents' claims, nor had they shown that the respondents' claims were otherwise without merit. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, as the potential prejudice to them if the injunction was discharged outweighed any prejudice to the applicants. The court therefore dismissed the application to discharge the interlocutory injunction.

No final orders are made in this judgment, as it concerns only the interlocutory injunction. The substantive proceedings between the parties will continue.