Kurland, R. v European Asian of Australia Ltd

The applicants, Richard and Sandra Kurland, filed an application seeking an interlocutory order to prevent the European Asian of Australia Limited (the Eurasian Bank) from proceeding with a Supreme Court action to recover over $600,000, claimed under a guarantee and a letter of request. The Eurasian Bank, a merchant bank, sought the recovery from the Kurlands after the applicants failed to comply with a Supreme Court order to file a defence and affidavit of facts. Rogers J. subsequently granted the Eurasian Bank leave to enter judgment. The Kurlands argued that their application included a claim under section 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, necessitating the Court's intervention.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Kurlands' application, which included claims under the Trade Practices Act, warranted an interlocutory order to prevent the Eurasian Bank from proceeding in the Supreme Court. The Court needed to assess whether the Kurlands' application provided sufficient evidence to justify interlocutory relief, particularly given the significant amount at stake and the failure to comply with Supreme Court orders.

The Court dismissed the Kurlands' application, noting that the applicants had not provided a detailed affidavit setting out the essential facts necessary to support their claims. The Court found that without such evidence, it could not be satisfied that there was a sufficient case to warrant interlocutory relief. The Court further noted that the Eurasian Bank's claim involved substantial amounts, and the Kurlands had not filed any affidavit in any court detailing the facts on which they relied. The Court concluded that the application did not present a suitable case for interlocutory relief, particularly given the significant sum involved and the lack of detailed evidence.

The Court ordered the application be dismissed with costs. The case was stood over to a convenient date for directions, allowing the applicants to consider their position and potentially make an application in the Supreme Court.