Iloski v State of Victoria

The parties involved in the case were Iloski and the State of Victoria. The dispute centred on the removal of goods from a property by a mortgagee and the subsequent refusal of the Bank to return the goods to the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiffs sought mandatory orders for the Bank to cause them to regain custody and control of the goods removed by the mortgagee, as well as an injunction to restrain Victoria Police from repeating certain conduct.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court had the power to make mandatory orders in respect of the custody and preservation of property, and whether an injunction could be granted to restrain Victoria Police from repeating certain conduct. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, particularly rule 37, which deals with the power to make orders for the custody and preservation of property.

The court found that the mortgagee was not a party to the proceeding and no claim had been made against it. The court held that it did not have the power to make mandatory orders in respect of the custody and preservation of property where the property had been removed by a third party and was not in the court's possession. The court also found that an injunction could not be granted to restrain Victoria Police from repeating certain conduct, as the plaintiffs had not established a sufficient case for an injunction. The application was refused.

No further orders were made by the court.