Harriette & Co Pty Ltd v Platine Property Development Pty Ltd (No 2)

In Harriette & Co Pty Ltd v Platine Property Development Pty Ltd (No 2), the applicant sought an extension of an interlocutory injunction previously granted in relation to property located in Sydney. The primary dispute concerned the applicant's attempt to prevent the defendant from proceeding with the sale of the property. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for an injunction, whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, and if there had been a sufficient change in circumstances since the initial interlocutory injunction was granted. The court also had to consider whether the power of judicial sale was discretionary or mandatory, and if conflicting authority on this point should be resolved in the context of an interlocutory application.

The court found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience still favoured the applicant despite changes in circumstances, such as the likelihood of finance approval and the making of financial undertakings. The court considered the change in circumstances, including the provision of loan documents and assurances regarding caveats, but ultimately determined that the balance of convenience still leaned in favour of the applicant. The court also concluded that it was not appropriate to resolve conflicting lines of authority regarding the nature of the power of judicial sale in the context of this interlocutory application.

The court granted the application for an extension of the interlocutory injunction. The defendant was restrained from proceeding with the sale of the property, and the injunction was extended until the final hearing of the matter.