Masters in Building Training Pty Limited v State of New South Wales (No 2)

In this case, Masters in Building Training Pty Limited (Masters) was in dispute with the State of New South Wales over a government subsidy contract for vocational education and training. The court was asked to determine whether the government could exercise a contractual power to withhold subsidy payments. The case came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where Masters sought a further order to restrain the government from withholding the subsidy payments. The legal issues included whether the application was for summary judgment, the requirements for establishing a prima facie case, and the doctrine of unclean hands. The court also considered the balance of convenience in making its decision.

The court held that the application was not for summary judgment but rather an interlocutory application seeking to enforce an existing order. The court found that Masters had established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the government had previously been ordered to continue performing the contract. The court also considered the doctrine of unclean hands, which prevents a party from seeking equitable relief if they have acted inequitably in relation to the matter in question. However, the court determined that the government's actions did not amount to inequity in this case. Finally, the court considered the balance of convenience and found that it favoured granting the order sought by Masters, as the government's withholding of payments would cause significant harm to Masters and its students.

The court granted the order sought by Masters, restraining the government from withholding the subsidy payments. The court held that the government must continue to perform the contract and make the payments as required. The court also noted that the government had the right to seek to set aside the previous interlocutory injunction if it could establish a change in circumstances or other grounds for doing so. The final orders of the court were that the government must continue to perform the contract and make the payments as required, and that the government was restrained from withholding the subsidy payments.