Hanna & Anor v. Body Corporate for Surfers Hawaiian

The applicants, Hanna and another, sought an interlocutory injunction against the body corporate for Surfers Hawaiian, claiming entitlement to operate their restaurant pursuant to a licence from the respondent. The applicants argued that the body corporate had wrongfully terminated their licence, causing significant financial harm and loss of business. The court had to determine whether the applicants had a serious question to be tried and if the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

The court considered whether the applicants had established a serious question to be tried, which required a balance of probabilities. The applicants needed to show that their case was not frivolous or vexatious and that there was a real prospect of success at the trial. Additionally, the court assessed the balance of convenience to decide whether the injunction should be granted. The applicants argued that the potential harm of the injunction being denied outweighed any harm that might be caused to the respondent if the injunction were granted.

The court found that the applicants had raised a serious question to be tried, as there was a real prospect of success on the merits of their case. The applicants demonstrated that they had a valid licence and that the termination was without proper cause. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an interlocutory injunction, as the applicants would suffer significant financial harm if the injunction were not granted. Therefore, the court granted the interlocutory injunction in the terms sought by the applicants.

The final order was the granting of an interlocutory injunction in the terms sought by the applicants. This injunction required the body corporate for Surfers Hawaiian to permit the applicants to continue operating their restaurant under the terms of the existing licence, pending the outcome of the full trial.