Centreplex Pty Ltd v Noahs Rosehill Waters Pty Ltd

Centreplex Pty Ltd (the plaintiff) brought an application for an interlocutory injunction against Noahs Rosehill Waters Pty Ltd (the defendant) seeking to restrain the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from performing its obligations under an agreement. The plaintiff sought the injunction to protect its right to continue operating a casino at the defendant’s premises. The defendant opposed the injunction on the basis that the plaintiff had repudiated the agreement, and therefore, the agreement had been lawfully terminated. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for relief, whether the plaintiff would suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction. The court was also required to determine the validity of the termination of the agreement, the existence of a repudiation by the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff was in breach of the agreement.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for relief, as there was a serious question to be tried as to the plaintiff's entitlement to relief, and a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation of the status quo pending trial. The court also found that the plaintiff was likely to suffer injury for which damages would not be an adequate remedy, and that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the injunction. The court held that the plaintiff had not repudiated the agreement, and that the agreement had not been lawfully terminated. The court found that the plaintiff had not breached the agreement, and that the defendant had repudiated the agreement.

The court granted the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from performing its obligations under the agreement.