Dandaloo Pty Ltd v Darwich

Dandaloo Pty Ltd sought an injunction against Darwich to prevent him from engaging in activities that were inconsistent with the restrictive covenants in a subdivision in which he owned a property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the Court was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the claim for an injunction. Dandaloo argued that Darwich's activities were in breach of the restrictive covenants and sought an injunction to prevent further breaches.

The Court considered the evidence provided by Dandaloo and found that it was not sufficient to support the claim for an injunction. The Court held that Dandaloo had not established that the restrictive covenants were valid and enforceable, and therefore, the claim for an injunction should be dismissed. The Court found that there was no evidence that the restrictive covenants had been properly registered and that there was no evidence that Dandaloo had taken reasonable steps to enforce the covenants in the past. The Court also found that there was no evidence that Darwich's activities were inconsistent with the restrictive covenants.

The Court held that an injunction should only be granted if the applicant can establish that they have a clear and unequivocal right to the relief sought. In this case, Dandaloo had not established such a right, and therefore, the claim for an injunction should be dismissed. The Court also noted that the grant of an injunction would have a significant impact on Darwich's ability to use and enjoy his property, and therefore, the balance of convenience favoured Darwich.

The Court dismissed the claim for an injunction and made no order as to costs.