D'Arcy v Kyrios

The New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, D'Arcy, and the respondents, Kyrios and others. The case concerned an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondents from proceeding with a proposed sale of certain shares.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant had established a sufficient likelihood of success in the underlying proceedings to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This involved assessing whether the appellant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the validity of a prior agreement and the respondents' alleged breach of that agreement.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, particularly the test established in *Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill*. This test requires the applicant to show that there is a "serious question to be tried" and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the injunction. The Court found that the appellant had not satisfied the threshold of demonstrating a serious question to be tried, as the evidence presented did not sufficiently support the appellant's claim that a binding agreement had been reached. Consequently, the Court determined that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the primary judge, refusing to grant the interlocutory injunction sought by the appellant.