Hoho Property Pty Ltd v Bass Finance No 37

The parties involved in this case were Hoho Property Pty Ltd and Bass Finance No 37, with the dispute concerning an interim injunction in relation to the sale of secured property. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs, Hoho Property, sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant, Bass Finance, from unreasonably withholding consent to the sale of the secured property. This was under an existing undertaking and consent orders that established a regime for the sale of the secured property with the consent of the mortgagee, which in this case was Bass Finance.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had unreasonably withheld consent to the sale of the property on terms negotiated by the plaintiffs with the proposed purchaser and whether an interim injunction should be granted to preserve the status quo. The court had to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interim injunction.

The court found that the existing undertaking and consent orders established a regime for the sale of the secured property with the consent of the mortgagee. The court further found that the defendant had unreasonably withheld consent to the sale of the property on terms negotiated by the plaintiffs with the proposed purchaser. The court held that an interim injunction was appropriate to preserve the status quo and that the balance of convenience favoured the granting of an interim injunction. The court therefore granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, Hoho Property, and against the defendant, Bass Finance.

The court ordered that the defendant, Bass Finance, was to give its consent to the sale of the secured property on the terms negotiated by the plaintiffs with the proposed purchaser. The court also ordered that the defendant, Bass Finance, pay the costs of the plaintiffs, Hoho Property, in relation to the application for the interim injunction.