Dunworth & Falletti

In this matter before the Honourable Justice Wilson, the applicant sought interlocutory injunctive relief to restrain the respondent from completing the sale of a property. The core of the dispute concerned the existence of a de facto relationship between the parties and the nature of certain financial transactions, specifically whether purported loans were genuine or sham transactions intended to defeat the applicant's potential claims.

The court was required to determine whether it possessed the jurisdiction to grant an injunction, particularly in circumstances where its ultimate jurisdiction had not yet been definitively established. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the applicant had established a serious issue to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of injunctive relief. The court also considered the status of the caveators as arm's length lenders and the validity of their alleged loans, as well as whether the transactions in question constituted sham transactions.

Justice Wilson reasoned that the court had the power to grant injunctive relief even before its ultimate jurisdiction was established, drawing on High Court authority. The court found that a serious issue to be tried had been established regarding the existence of the de facto relationship, the nature of the financial transactions, and the caveators' positions. The balance of convenience was found to favour the applicant, as the potential harm to her if the sale proceeded and her claims were later successful outweighed the harm to the respondent if the sale was temporarily restrained. The court also noted that while an undertaking as to damages is often required, it was not a mandatory requirement in all cases, and none was extracted from the impecunious applicant.

The court ordered that the respondent be restrained from settling or completing the contract for the sale of the property, and that any deposit paid be retained and not disbursed. Mr B, D Pty Ltd, and Ms C were joined as respondents, and the applicant was directed to file and serve an amended application identifying her claims against them. Directions were also given for the filing of responses by the respondents and for a further hearing.