Gandy v Gandy [No 2]

The applicants, Mr and Mrs Gandy, sought final relief orders to perfect the vesting of land that was subject to a resolution by the trustees of a family trust. The dispute arose due to the separation of the applicants and the subsequent need to distribute the trust assets. The court was required to determine whether an agreement for the distribution of the trust assets was preliminary or conditional and to assess the adequacy of damages in the context of an interlocutory injunction. Additionally, the applicants sought an injunction to restrain dealing with dividends from shares that were part of the trust assets, which were allegedly subject to a sale agreement. The court had to decide whether there was a breach of the sale agreement and whether a serious question was to be tried.

The court considered the nature of the agreement for the distribution of the trust assets, determining that it was conditional rather than preliminary. This conclusion was based on the specific terms of the agreement and the context in which it was made. Regarding the interlocutory injunction, the court assessed the balance of convenience and the adequacy of damages. It was held that there was a serious question to be tried concerning the breach of the sale agreement, but the balance of convenience favoured the respondent. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The court granted the application for final relief, allowing the perfecting of the vesting of the land. However, it dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the dealing with dividends from the shares. The court found that the applicants had not established that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the breach of the sale agreement or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The adequacy of damages was also considered, leading the court to conclude that damages would be an appropriate remedy.

In conclusion, the court granted the application for final relief but dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction. The court determined that the agreement for the distribution of the trust assets was conditional and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction to restrain the dealing with dividends from the shares. The final orders reflected these decisions, allowing the vesting of the land to be perfected while denying the applicants' request for an injunction.