Hachette Filipacchi Presse v Lisson Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee for PBS Unit Trust

The Federal Court of Australia heard an application by Hachette Filipacchi Presse (Hachette), a French publisher, against Lisson Nominees Pty Ltd as Trustee for PBS Unit Trust (Lisson Nominees), the owner of a property at 100 William Street, Sydney. Hachette sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain Lisson Nominees from proceeding with the demolition of the building at that address, which housed a significant collection of artworks and historical artefacts. Hachette argued that the demolition would cause irreparable harm to these items, which were of cultural and historical importance, and that Lisson Nominees had not adequately considered their preservation.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Hachette had established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This required the Court to consider whether Hachette possessed a legal right or interest in the preservation of the artworks and artefacts, and whether Lisson Nominees owed a duty of care or had a legal obligation to protect them from demolition. The Court also had to assess the balance of convenience, weighing the potential harm to Hachette and the public interest in preserving cultural heritage against the potential prejudice to Lisson Nominees in delaying their development plans.

In determining the matter, the Court applied the principles governing interlocutory injunctions, particularly the test for establishing a serious question to be tried. Justice Walters found that Hachette had not demonstrated a sufficiently arguable case that it had a legal right to prevent the demolition of the property or the removal of the artworks. The Court noted that Hachette’s interest was primarily commercial and that there was no evidence of a proprietary interest in the land or the specific items. Furthermore, the Court found that Lisson Nominees, as the owner of the property, was entitled to exercise its rights of ownership, and that Hachette had not established that Lisson Nominees had breached any legal duty owed to them. The balance of convenience also favoured Lisson Nominees, as the injunction would significantly impede their lawful development.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Hachette’s application for an interlocutory injunction.