Federal Airports Corporation v Makucha Developments P/L Summary

G03 Ct3

JUDGMENT No. ........ ........ .. I ...,........

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

) )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

) No 184 of 1993
)
GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN F E D E R A L A I R P O R T S L
CORPORATION
Apphcant
I

AND MAKUCHA DEVELOPMENTS P -
PTY LTD

F~rst Respondent

;;

VANESHA PTY LIMITED

I.

Second Respondent I
' .
PAULMAKUCHA
Third Respondent

BETWEEN: MAKUCHA DEVELOPMENTS
PTY LTD

F~rst Applicant
PAUL MAKUCHA
Second Applicant

AND. F E D E R A L A I R P O R T S
CORPORATION
Respondents

Dav~es J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
EX TEMPORE

This 1s an application seeking an order that the first and third respondents

be restrained from entering upon or using Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 787029 to obtain

access to and egress from Lot 20 in Deposited Plan 747023 otherwise than in accordance with the licence agreement between the parties, and wthout the consent of the applicant. In my view, the facts do not presently show that there is any apprehension of a trespass. Whilst there is evidence that there was a trespass upon the Federal Airport Corporation's ("FAC") land in May, on the evidence that is before me, such trespass ceased when the Makucha Interests were instructed so to do.

I am of the op~nion that I should not add an injunction as sought to the

order for relief given. There has been an order for relief against forfelture in respect of the licence agreement and the Makucha interests are aware of the limitations of that agreement, so that should they commlt some breach of it in the future, FAC will

be entitled to take any action to which it is entitled by reason of that breach. It

seems to me to be qu~te unnecessary and undesirable to trammel the relationships

between the parties further by adding an order for an injunction.

Finally, I think it would be most improper for this Court to grant such an

injunction in the circumstance that it may be seen as a means by which FAC can demand very substantial sums from the Makucha interests for the purpose of crossing

FAC's land.

This is a case in which there is neither a present trespass, nor any presently

apprehended trespass and consequently no cause for the Court to grant an injunction. Further, I would not lend the Court's authority to any course of action by which FAC

may demand a very large sum for the purpose of crossing its land, particularly as there is no clear evidence in these proceedings that it is not in the public interest that this land should be developed and made available for the general use of the community. I would not wish to make an order which might give any indication to the contrary.

For these reasons, the application for an injunction as sought by the

applicants will be refused.

I certify that this and the 2 preceding pages
are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of
the Honourable Mr Justlce Davies.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Federal Airports Corporation v Makucha Developments P/L is a case in which the applicants sought an order to prevent the respondents from accessing and using a piece of land owned by the Federal Airports Corporation without the applicants' consent. The Federal Airports Corporation brought the application against Makucha Developments P/L, Vanesha P/L, and Paul Makucha, who are the respondents. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry.

The court was required to determine whether an injunction should be granted to prevent the respondents from entering upon and using the land in question. The applicants argued that an injunction was necessary to prevent the respondents from trespassing on the land owned by the Federal Airports Corporation. The Federal Airports Corporation, however, opposed the application for an injunction, arguing that there was no present or apprehended trespass and that the applicants were not entitled to demand large sums of money for the use of the land.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that there was no present or apprehended trespass on the land in question. The court also noted that the applicants were aware of the limitations of the licence agreement and that the Federal Airports Corporation would be entitled to take any action to which it was entitled by reason of any breach of the agreement. The court held that it would be improper to grant an injunction in this case, particularly as there was no clear evidence that it was not in the public interest that the land should be developed and made available for the general use of the community. The court found that the applicants were not entitled to demand large sums of money for the use of the land and that granting an injunction would trammel the relationships between the parties further.

In conclusion, the court refused to grant the injunction sought by the applicants. The court found that there was no present or apprehended trespass on the land in question and that the applicants were not entitled to demand large sums of money for the use of the land. The court also held that granting an injunction would be improper and would trammel the relationships between the parties further.

Federal Airports Corporation v Makucha Developments P/L

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	F E D E R A L	A I R P O R T S	L
CORPORATION
Apphcant
I
AND	MAKUCHA	DEVELOPMENTS	P -
PTY LTD

be entitled to take any action to which it is entitled by reason of that breach.	It
seems to me to be qu~te	unnecessary and undesirable to trammel the relationships