Land and Environment Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hume Coal Pty Limited v Alexander [2012] NSWLEC 267 Hearing dates: 16, 29 November 2012; written submissions (applicant) 30 November 2012 Decision date: 07 December 2012 Jurisdiction: Class 8 Before: Sheahan J Decision: 1. The plaintiff's Notice of Motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
2. The costs of the interlocutory proceedings are reserved.
3. The exhibits are retained.
4. The matter is referred to the List Judge's list on Friday 14 December 2012.
Catchwords: INTERLOCUTORY RELIEF: Interlocutory injunction sought - would effectively bring the substantive proceedings to an end - principles to apply in serious question(s) to be tried - balance of convenience Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Mining Act 1992
Roads Act 1993
Wingecarribee Local Environmental Plan 2010
Mining Regulation 2010Cases Cited: American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396; [1975] 1 All ER 504
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57
Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1; 118 CLR 618
Brown v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 143; 76 NSWLR 473
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia [1986] HCA 58; 161 CLR 148
Elliston v Reacher [1908] 2 Ch 374
European Bank Ltd v Evans [2010] HCA 6; 264 ALR 1
Ferella v Otvosi [2004] NSWSC 230
Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group Inc v Dart Energy Ltd [2012] NSWLEC 207
Hobson v Middleton (1827) 6 B & C 295
Hosking v Haas (No. 2) [2009] NSWSC 1328
Inetstore Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq) v Southern Matrix International Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 883; 221 ALR 179
Kennedy v Stockland Developments Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWLEC 186
Kerridge v Foley [1964-5] NSWR 1948
Kolback Securities Ltd v Epoch Mining NL (1987) 8 NSWLR 533
Plaintiffs M168/10 v Commonwealth [2011] HCA 25; 85 ALJR 790
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355
Reid v Bickerstaff [1909] 2 Ch 305
Re Louis and the Conveyancing Act [1971] 1 NSWLR 164
Re Mack and the Conveyancing Act [1975] 2 NSWLR 623
Rossmar Park Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Coal Mines Australia Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1385
Save Our Figs Inc v General Manager Newcastle City Council [2011] NSWLEC 207; 186 LGERA 127
Shoalhaven City Council v Bridgewater Investments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 103
Silktone Pty Ltd v Devreal Capital Pty Ltd (1990) 21 NSWLR 317
Tegra (NSW) Pty Ltd v Gundagai Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 806; 160 LGERA 1
Toleman v Portbury (1872) LR7QB 344 (Ex Ch)
Warringah Shire Council v Sedevcic (1987) 10 NSWLR 335
Valuer General of New South Wales v In Adam Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 306Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hume Coal Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Ross Alexander (First Defendant)
Margaret Anne Alexander (Second Defendant)Representation: Mr R C Beasley SC (Plaintiff)
Ms J Needham SC, and Mr S Chapple (Defendants)
Minter…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hume Coal Pty Limited v Alexander and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2012] NSWLEC 267
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Hume Coal Pty Limited initiated legal proceedings against Alexander, contending that Alexander had breached contractual obligations and engaged in tortious conduct by disclosing confidential information. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent further breaches and disclosure of confidential information. The central legal issues involved the enforceability of non-disclosure agreements and the circumstances under which an interlocutory injunction might be granted. The court examined whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success at trial, and whether an injunction would be just and convenient. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the high threshold required for an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the plaintiff's case did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the balance of convenience did not favour the granting of an injunction. Consequently, the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed. The court also reserved the costs of the interlocutory proceedings for further determination and retained the exhibits. The matter was subsequently referred to the List Judge's list for further directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The plaintiff's Notice of Motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
2. The costs of the interlocutory proceedings are reserved.
3. The exhibits are retained.
4. The matter is referred to the List Judge's list on Friday 14 December 2012.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.