Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd

The respondents, Lewis and Lamru, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondents, Nortex and Kation, from disposing of property pending the determination of their respective rights. The dispute arose from a complex commercial relationship involving the sale of shares and an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicants argued that the respondents had engaged in misconduct that warranted an injunction to preserve the property. They contended that the respondents had a common design to defeat their claims and that the property in question was at risk of being dissipated.

The court considered whether the applicants had established the necessary threshold for an interlocutory injunction, including the need to fund litigation and the nature of the evidence required. The applicants needed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried and that they were likely to succeed at trial. The court also needed to consider whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The applicants argued that the property in question was critical to their claims and that the respondents had a propensity to dissipate assets. They submitted that the evidence of misconduct and the risk of dissipation warranted the grant of an injunction.

The court found that the applicants had made out a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction. The evidence of misconduct and the risk of dissipation were sufficient to warrant the preservation of the property. The court considered that the applicants were likely to succeed at trial and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court held that the applicants had established a serious issue to be tried and that they were likely to succeed on the merits. The court also found that the applicants had demonstrated a need to fund litigation and that the evidence was sufficient to warrant the grant of the injunction.

The court granted the applicants' interlocutory injunction, restraining the respondents from disposing of the property pending the determination of the applicants' claims. The court also ordered the respondents to provide an undertaking as to assets and to disclose the location of the property in question.