Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors
Case
•
[2018] QSC 6
•29 January 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 6
[2018] QSC 6
29 January 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Low sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of two adjudication decisions under the Building and Construction Industry Payments Act 2009 (Qld) which had been filed as judgments in the District Court of Queensland. The respondent, MCC, opposed the application. The applicant had offered to provide a bank guarantee to cover the amount of the adjudicator’s decisions. The court had to decide whether a prima facie case had been made out for an interlocutory injunction and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction.
The court noted that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction as they had offered to provide a bank guarantee. The court also noted that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction as the applicant had demonstrated that the potential harm to them if the injunction was not granted outweighed the potential harm to the respondent if the injunction was granted. The court also noted that the applicant had demonstrated that they had a substantial question to be tried and that the injunctive relief sought was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
Accordingly, the court granted the application and restrained the first defendant from enforcing the adjudication decisions until further order. The court also ordered that the applicant provide an unconditional bank guarantee within three business days. The costs of the application and the hearing were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted. The originating application was adjourned to a date to be fixed, and the costs of the application and the hearing were reserved.
The court noted that the applicant had demonstrated a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction as they had offered to provide a bank guarantee. The court also noted that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction as the applicant had demonstrated that the potential harm to them if the injunction was not granted outweighed the potential harm to the respondent if the injunction was granted. The court also noted that the applicant had demonstrated that they had a substantial question to be tried and that the injunctive relief sought was necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
Accordingly, the court granted the application and restrained the first defendant from enforcing the adjudication decisions until further order. The court also ordered that the applicant provide an unconditional bank guarantee within three business days. The costs of the application and the hearing were reserved, and liberty to apply was granted. The originating application was adjourned to a date to be fixed, and the costs of the application and the hearing were reserved.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Equity
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Interlocutory Orders
-
Balance of Convenience
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Low v MCC Pty Ltd & Ors [2018] QSC 6
Most Recent Citation
Karam Group Pty Ltd v Earthmoving Contractors Pty Ltd [2021] QSC 10
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0