Garland Lot 3 Pty Ltd v Bridge Property Investments Pty Ltd

Garland Lot 3 Pty Ltd (the vendor) brought an action against Bridge Property Investments Pty Ltd (the purchaser) in relation to a property transaction. The vendor sought, amongst other things, an interlocutory injunction preventing the purchaser from selling part of the project. The purchaser had previously lodged a caveat over the property, which the vendor sought to have removed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The issues the Court needed to address included whether the caveat was valid and, if so, whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction. Another issue was whether the purchaser had wrongfully failed to object to the vendor's sale of part of the project, which would amount to a breach of their Deed of Sale. Lastly, the Court had to determine the proper construction of the Deed of Sale, particularly in relation to the phrase "Lender Consent Matter".

In determining the issues, the Court held that the caveat was invalid because the purchaser had not provided the vendor with the required information to substantiate it. The Court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as the purchaser had already sold part of the project. The Court further held that the phrase "Lender Consent Matter" did not require the purchaser's consent before the vendor could contract to sell part of the project. The Court found that the purchaser's failure to object to the sale would amount to a breach of the Deed of Sale, but this was not a sufficient ground to grant the injunction.

The Court ordered that the caveat be removed and that the parties enter into a consent order to that effect. The Court declined to grant the interlocutory injunction and ordered the parties to bear their own costs of the application.