Manos v Maras

In Manos v Maras, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dealt with an appeal against interlocutory orders that enabled preliminary steps towards exercising a time-limited call option to purchase the freehold of leased land. The dispute centred around the entitlement to beneficial ownership of the lease and whether the call option should be exercised. The parties, Messrs Maras and Manos, had a long-standing business relationship involving various real estate projects in and around Adelaide. Their relationship soured in 2004, leading to a mediation in March 2006 that resulted in a handwritten agreement. However, disagreements arose, prompting the plaintiffs to seek declarations and specific performance orders to enforce the agreement. The court's task was to determine the nature of the orders made and whether they were akin to an injunction or a final determination of a substantive right, which would impact the necessity of permission to appeal under s 50(5) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA).

The court had to decide if the interlocutory orders were in the nature of an injunction or if they amounted to a final determination of a substantive right. This distinction was crucial because, under s 50(5) of the Supreme Court Act, an appeal from an interlocutory order generally requires permission unless the order grants or refuses relief in the nature of an injunction or makes a final determination of a substantive right. The court examined the orders made by the single judge to determine their nature. The orders sought by the plaintiffs were designed to ensure that the lessee’s call option was exercised. Although the respondents acquiesced in these orders, they were not seeking to exclude Mr Manos from taking any action towards exercising the option. Given the urgency required and Mr Manos’s unavailability, it was practical for Mr Maras to act on his behalf.

The court found that the orders were not in the nature of an injunction or a final determination of a substantive right. Instead, they were preliminary steps to ensure the preservation of the disputed asset. The court concluded that permission to appeal would have been refused, as the orders did not meet the criteria for an appeal without permission. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.