Hera Project Pty Ltd v Bisognin

The plaintiff, Hera Project Pty Ltd, sought an interlocutory prohibitory injunction and specific performance, or alternatively a mandatory injunction, to prevent the defendant, Bisognin, from terminating a contract for the sale of land. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether an interlocutory prohibitory injunction should be granted to prevent the defendant from terminating the contract and, if so, whether a mandatory injunction should be granted to compel the defendant to take steps to execute the contract.

The court considered the nature of the relief sought by the plaintiff, noting that an order for specific performance was not appropriate at an interlocutory stage. It also examined the balance of convenience and whether a serious question was to be tried. The court held that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the defence of hardship and whether the contract was no longer fair and reasonable due to changed circumstances. However, the balance of convenience did not favour granting a mandatory injunction. Instead, the court decided to continue the prohibitory interlocutory injunction, which prevented the defendant from terminating the contract. The court also considered the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages, referencing the case of Boyarsky v Taylor [2008] NSWSC 1415. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had provided an adequate undertaking as to damages, which was a necessary condition for the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

Ultimately, the court ordered the continuation of the prohibitory interlocutory injunction, preventing the defendant from terminating the contract for the sale of land. The court did not grant the mandatory injunction sought by the plaintiff. The final orders of the court were that the defendant was restrained from terminating the contract and that the plaintiff provide an undertaking as to damages.