Kwikshift Pty Ltd v Baban, Hazel Elizabeth

[1982] FCA 202

c o w 1	Toohey	J
DP.TE

~	2 September 1381
l i f t e d a house a t lor 8 Gulnare Road, llundred n f Ftrangeways,

RICASONS FOR J U D G t I E X T _.

On 2 July 1983 i n t h e Supreme Courl: o f the Northern

Te r r i t o ry ,	I l u i rhcad	.J	maclc.	sevcr'll	o r d c r s	I,?	W.IV o r mnndatory
injunction

Jn p a r t i c u l a r h i ? Honour o r d c r e d t h a t on 10 . J L I ~ V

t h e f i r s t appC?llaT)t I (w1ksh~f t l ' t l r L t d l i f t o r C ~ U S C 1 - 0 be

t o a h e i g h t a b o v e g r o u n d l e v e l s u f f i c i e n t t o e n a b l e workmen

t o work underneath the house to repalr and complete cer ta in

p i e r s . H i s Honour fur ther o rdered tha t Kwikshi f t and the

second appel lan t Roy Jansen , a director and employee of t h e

f irst a p p e l l a n t , s a f e l y m a i n t a i n t h e h o u s e i n p o s i t i o n o v e r

t h e piers f o r a pe r iod o f 14 days to enable Nrs Baban, the

, r e sponden t , t o r epa i r and comple t e t he p l e r s . The Cour t a l so

o r d e r e d t h a t i f w i t h i n t h a t p e r i o d o f 14 days the respondent

h a d c o m p l e t e d t h e p i e r s	t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f	a n I n s p e c t o r
o f	t he Nor the rn Te r r i t o ry Bu i ld ing Board ,	t he appe l l an t s

were to lower the house on to the p ie rs so tha t t he house sa t

c o r r e c t l y .

Those orders were made i n i n t e r l o c u t o r y p r o c e e d i n g s

as pa r t o f an ac t ion b rough t by the respondent aga ins t the

a p p e l l a n t s claiming in junc t ions and damages for b reach of

con t r ac t and t o r t , a r i s ing ou t o f an ag reemen t be tween

Mrs Baban and Kwikshift for the purchase of a house a t

Adelaide River and i t s removal t o Gulnare Road.

The appe l l an t s have appea led aga lns t t he o rde r s made

by the Supreme Court . That appeal i s due to be hea rd by the

Ful l Cour t of t he Fede ra l Cour t i n i t s s i t t i n g s i n Darwin,

commencing on 2 1 September t h i s y e a r .

On 1 9 J u l y I h e a r d a n a n p l i c a t i o n b y t h e a p p e l l a n t s

for an o rder suspending the InJunct ions g ran ted by t h e Supreme

Cour t un t i l the de te rmina t ion of the appea l . Al though so

f r amed , t he app l i ca t ion was i n e f f e c t one f o r a s t a y o f

execu t ion pu r suan t t o o rde r 52 r u l e 1 7 of the Federal Court

Rules In essence the ground of the application was t h a t i n

the absence of a s tay the respondent would have obtained most

o f t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t by h e r i n t h e Supreme Cour t ac t ion The

appeal would thus be rendered nugatory, especial ly as the

respondent	had no assets	through which the undertaking she gave
a s t o	damages	could h e enforced

I was n o t p e r s u a d e d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s h o u l d b e

g r a n t e d b u t , as i t was t h e n l a t e i n t h e a f t e r n o o n o f t h e day

f i x e d by t h e Supreme Court for compliance, I o r d e r e d t h a t t h e

i n j u n c t i o n b e s u s p e n d e d u n t i l	5	00	p . m .	on	Vednesday	2 1	J u l y
so	as	t o g i v e t h e a p p e l l a n t s	some	f u r t h e r	time	i n which	to

comply I a l s o g a v e l i b e r t y t o a p p l y .

The ma t t e r came b e f o r e m e aga in on 2 1 Ju ly pu r suan t

t o t h e l i b e r t y t o a p p l y p r o v i s i o n . I then o rde red t ha t t he

i n j u n c t i o n e r a n t e d i n t h e Supreme Court be suspended unt i l th+

de termina t ion of the appea l or u n t l l f u r t h e r o r d e r . I d i d t h i s

l a r g e l y on t h e b a s i s of a f f i d a v i t m a t e r i a l f u r n i s h e d by t h e

second appe l l an t sugges t ing t ha t i t was phys ica l ly imooss ib le

t o l i f t the respondent ' s house wi th the same equipment and

methods as had been u sed o r ig ina l ly , t ha t f o r reasons of

expense and unavai labi l i ty of equipment i t was n o t p r a c t i c a l

t o u se any o the r means and t ha t i n gene ra l t he house was Ear

safer and less l i k e l y t o b e damaged i f i t remained where i t was

than i f an a t tempt was made t o l i f t i t with the equipment

a v a i l a b l e The f a c t t h a t t h e h o u s e was n o t i n imminent danger

o f c o l l a p s i n c a n d t h e u n d e s i r a b i l i t y o f u s i n g t h e o r i g m a l

method of l i f t i n g and lowering the house were supported by t h e

opin ion of a consu l t ing eng inee r .

The m a t t e r i s beJ-ore me a g a i n , t h l s time on

app l i ca t ion by t he r e sponden t t o se t a s lde t he s t ay and a l low

t h e o r d e r s made i n t h e Supreme Cour t to opera te .

The b a s i s o f t h e p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n i s to be found

i n a f f i d a v i t s f u r n i s h e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t , by Martin Walter Creek

a man e x p e r i e n c e d l n l i f t i n g a n d r e l o c a t i n g b u i l d i n g s , a n d

Gary John Llnde Swanson, the director of the bui lding authori ty

branch of the Department of Lands. In e s sence t he l r ev idence

demonst ra tes tha t i t is p o s s i b l e t o re - l i f t the house wl th

equipment that i s c u r r e n t l y available and tha t such a course

i s p r a c t i c a b l e . I n t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s s u b m i s s i o n i t a l s o

demonst ra tes tha t new c o n s i d e r a t i o n s e x i s t g i v l n g , i n t h e w o r d s

used by the respondent 's counsel, cogency and urgency to the

i n j u n c t i o n s . T h e s e c o n s i d e r n t l o n s a r e t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e a s

i t s t a n d s i s u n s t a b l e , t h a t i t i s dangerous, that the respondent

s t ands i n threat of Imminent prosecut ion f rom the Bul lding

Board	because	of	t he cond i t ion o f t he house and t ha t	if	t h e
o r d e r s	by	way	o f i n junc t ion a r e no t	imp lemen ted fo r thwi th ,	t he

w e t season w i l l make r e c t i f i c a t i o n i m p o s s i b l e f o r a number of

months This i n t u r n w i l l . increase the danger o f the house

co l laps ing and w i l l make a p r o s e c u t i o n i n e v i t a b l e .

The a p p e l l a n t s h a v e c o u n t e r e d w i t h f u r t h e r a f f i d a v i t s .

One inc ludes an add i t iona l r epor t f rom the consu l t in? eng inee r

m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r i n t h e s e r e a s o n s . 1J.L. Meinhardt & P a r t n e r s

(N .T ) P t y L t d r e p e a t t h e i r ear l ier o p i n i o n t h a t " t h e s t r u c t u r e

i s s a f e	i n	t h e	s h o r t	t e r m " .	A n o t h e r	a f f i d a v i t	s u p p o r t s	t h e
view	t h a t t h e	use	of	10	t o n h y d r a u l i c j a c k s t o	l i f t	the	house

i s undes i r ab le , because o f t he 1 .ns t ab l l l t y o f s u c h j a c k s a r i s i n g

L

froml’an inadequate base There 1 s a f u r t h e r a f f i d a v i t by

the s econd a !~pe l l ane expres s ing an op in ion t ha t t he re	would
be no d i f f i cu l ty i n work ing on t he r e sponden t ’ s b lock we l l

i n t o J a n u a r y 1983 In o ther words i t i s s a i d t h a t t h e o n s e t

on the wet season will n o t m t e r f e r e w i t h a n y work t h e a p p e l l a n t s

may b e r e q u i r e d t o do i f t h e i r a p p e a l i s dismissed and the

i n junc t ions	uphe ld .
Obviouslv i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e f o r me t o r e s o l v e

sha rp ly d i spu ted ques t ions of f ac t deposed t o i n a f f i d a v i t s

without embarking upon a hea r ing w i th in a h e a r i n g , a s i t were

Counsel dld not suggest such a course which in any event would

be d i sp ropor t iona te t o t he	issue	o f whe the r o r	no t	t he s t ay
should cont inue .

On t h e m a t e r i a l b e f o r e me t h e r e i s a c l e a r d i s a g r c c -

ment of opinion as to whether i t i s p o s s i b l e t o r e l i f t t h e

house wi th equipment tha t i s c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e a n d w h e t h e r

such a course 1s prac t i cab le . The re i s an e s p e r t o p i n i o n t h a t ,

a t l e a s t , i n t h e s h o r t t e r m , t h e h o u s e i s safe . There i s

undoubtedly a th rea t o f p rosecut ion by the Bui ld ing Board bu t

how f a r t h a t i s r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n d u c t of t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a s

not emerged. There i s an op in ion f rom one o f the appel lan ts

t h a t i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t o work on t h e h o u s e u n t i l w e l l i n t o

January and no con t r a ry op in ion

I n o t h e r words t he cons ide ra t ions t ha t l ed t o t he

g ran t o f a s t a y on 2 1 . Ju ly remain re levant cons idera t ions

today. They have been challenged but I am no t pe r suaded t ha t

I should reach a d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n t o t h a t r e a c h e d e a r l i e r .

The respondent submitted that if the motion to

set aside the suspenslon of the injunctions was not granted,

the appellants should, as a term of the continuance of the

stay, give security The securitv, it was said, should

protect the respondent against any damage she might suffer by

reason of the stay On the material before me and having

regard to the disputed	natters of fact already mentloned	I
am not satisfied that this is	an appropriate case in which	to

order security. In particular I am not persuaded of the

likelihood of damage to the resDondents arising from the stay

as distinct from damage which she may have suffered or may

suffer as a result of the matters pleaded In the statement of

claim.

The appellants have prosecuted the aapeal with due

diligence and the ap?eal itself should be heard	by the end of
this month The stay ordered	on 21 July wlll continue The
motion is dismissed	As costs were reserved on the earlier

applications, It is appropriate that the costs of this

application be also reserved

6

.