Cooper v Moloney (No 6)

Cooper v Moloney (No 6) involved a dispute between Brendan Moloney, Brian Moloney, Hampden Park Pty Ltd, and Mr Cooper, who had various dealings and communications between late 2009 and early 2011. The parties had conflicting views on the nature and terms of their agreements, with Mr Cooper alleging an oral contract for the lease of certain sheds on Hampden Park's land, while the Moloneys denied any such contract. The court had to decide several legal issues, including whether the Moloneys were entitled to an order for security for costs, whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain the Moloneys from evicting Mr Cooper and preventing access to the sheds, and whether an injunction should be granted to restrain Camatta Lempens from acting for Mr Cooper in the actions.

The court found that the Moloneys had not established any ground under rule 194 for an order for security for costs, and therefore dismissed the application. The court also concluded that the Moloneys had not met the onus of establishing that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction to restrain them from evicting Mr Cooper and precluding access to the sheds. The court dissolved the interim injunction that had been granted previously. However, the court allowed Mr Cooper’s appeal against the order by the Master dismissing his application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the Registrar-General from making memoranda that the workers liens had ceased. The court also dismissed the Moloneys’ application for security for costs in the Debt Action.

The court dismissed Mr Moloney’s application for an injunction restraining Camatta Lempens from acting for Mr Cooper in the actions. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Camatta Lempens had acted in any way that would warrant an injunction. The court will hear the parties as to precise orders to be made.