Devine Real Estate Concord Pty Ltd v Agha

The case of Devine Real Estate Concord Pty Ltd v Agha involved a dispute over the ownership of shares and the granting of injunctive relief by the court. The plaintiffs, Devine Real Estate Concord Pty Ltd, sought to obtain contractual, statutory, and equitable injunctive restraints against the defendants, Agha, prior to the hearing and determination of a separate case involving breach of confidence and restraint of trade. The defendants opposed the grant of any interlocutory relief, arguing that the plaintiffs' failure to pay them for the purchase of shares and their lack of readiness to perform contractual obligations disentitled them to relief.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiffs had a prima facie case for the grant of any form of injunctive relief, whether the plaintiffs' conduct disentitled them to seek specific performance, and whether their failure to fulfil contractual obligations was a ground for refusing to enforce statutory or equitable obligations. The court needed to consider whether the plaintiffs had established the necessary threshold for obtaining interlocutory relief and whether their conduct affected their entitlement to such relief.

The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of injunctive relief. However, the court found that the plaintiffs' failure to pay the defendants for the purchase of shares and their inability to demonstrate that they were ready, willing, and able to perform their contractual obligations disentitled them to seek specific performance. The court held that the maxim "he who seeks equity must do equity" applied in this context and that the plaintiffs' conduct was a ground for refusing to enforce the defendants' statutory or equitable obligations. The court refused to grant any form of interlocutory relief to the plaintiffs.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs pay the defendants the outstanding amount for the purchase of shares and that the application for interlocutory relief be dismissed with costs. The court held that the defendants' statutory and equitable obligations were not enforceable against the plaintiffs due to their conduct.