Legal Research
Cases
Churnin v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd

Churnin v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd

Case [2007] NSWSC 1459 14 December 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Churnin v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd; Mason v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd; Cheetham v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd; Blackman v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd; Blackman v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd; Glover v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1459

HEARING DATE(S): 4, 5 and 6 September 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 December 2007

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Young CJ in Eq

DECISION: The plaintiffs in 2031/01 to pay the first defendant $76,931 as compensation resulting from an undertaking to the court as to damages: pro rata orders in other matters.

CATCHWORDS: EQUITY [343] Equitable remedies- Injunctions- Interlocutory injunctions- Undertaking as to damages- How damages ought to be calculated when sales of units frustrated by injunction.

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 28 r7(2) (repealed)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 25.8

CASES CITED: Air Express Ltd v Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd (1979) 146 CLR 249
Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 310
Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Ricketts [1993] 1 WLR 1545
Evans & Associates v Citibank Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1004
F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295
National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth [1965] AC 1175
Prosser v Hughes (1835) 1 Y & C Ex 481; 160 ER 196
Smith v Day (1882) 21 Ch D 421
Victorian Onion & Potato Growers' Association v Finnigan [1922] VLR 819

PARTIES: 2031/01: Brian Churnin (P1)
Janet Churnin (P2)
Pilot Developments Pty Ltd (D1)
Beacon Development Corporation Pty Ltd (D2)
Parterre Glebe Pty Ltd (D3)
3386/01: Brendan Linnell Mason (P1)
Juliet Anne Evelyn London (P2)
Pilot Developments Pty Ltd (D1)
Beacon Development Corporation Pty Ltd (D2)
Parterre Glebe Pty Ltd (D3)
3298/01: David Mark Blackman (P1)
Brigitte Rose Blackman (P2)
Pilot Developments Pty Ltd (D1)
Beacon Development Corporation Pty Ltd (D2)
Parterre Glebe Pty Ltd (D3)
3300/01: David Mark Blackman (P1)
Brigitte Rose Blackman (P2)
Jeffrey Edward Blackman (P3)
Pilot Developments Pty Ltd (D1)
Beacon Development Corporation Pty Ltd (D2)
Parterre Glebe Pty Ltd (D3)
2444/01: Richard Ronald Glover (P)
Pilot Developments Pty Ltd (D1)
Beacon Development Corporation Pty Ltd (D2)
Parterre Glebe Pty Ltd (D3)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2031/01; 3386/01; 3298/01; 3300/01; 2444/01

COUNSEL: C Harris SC (Plaintiffs in 2031/01; 3386/01; 2444/01)
S Robson (Plaintiffs in 3298/01; 3300/01)
R A Parsons (D1 and D2)
P Carlisle (Solicitor) (D3)

SOLICITORS: Picone & Co (Plaintiffs in 2031/01; 3386/01; 2444/01)
Verekers Lawyers (D1 and D2)
Carlisle Attorneys (D3)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

YOUNG CJ in EQ

Friday 14 December 2007

2031/01 – CHURNIN v PILOT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
3386/01 – MASON v PILOT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
4025/01 – CHEETHAM v PILOT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
3298/01 – BLACKMAN v PILOT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
3300/01 – BLACKMAN v PILOT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
2444/01 - GLOVER v PILOT DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These reasons deal with questions relating to an undertaking as to damages given by the plaintiffs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Churnin v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Churnin v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1459
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1459
Decision Date: 14 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Churnin v Pilot Developments Pty Ltd, the dispute arose between the plaintiff, Mr Churnin, and the defendant, Pilot Developments, a property development company. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from selling certain units in a development, claiming that the sales would cause significant damage to his equitable interest in the property. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an undertaking as to damages was necessary in cases where an interlocutory injunction was granted to prevent the sale of property units. The court was required to determine how damages should be calculated in such instances, particularly when the sales were frustrated by the injunction. The court also needed to consider the balance of convenience and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious question to be tried.

The court held that when granting an interlocutory injunction to prevent the sale of property units, an undertaking as to damages should be given by the plaintiff. This undertaking should outline how damages would be calculated in the event that the sales were ultimately permitted. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the interests of both parties, taking into account the potential harm to the plaintiff's equitable interest and the impact on the defendant's commercial interests. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a serious question to be tried and granted the interlocutory injunction, subject to the plaintiff providing an undertaking as to damages. The court provided guidance on how damages should be calculated, taking into account factors such as the delay in sales and the potential loss of market value. The final orders of the court included the grant of the interlocutory injunction and the requirement for the plaintiff to provide an undertaking as to damages, with specific guidelines on how those damages should be calculated.

Orders