Masters in Building Training Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales

Masters in Building Training Pty Ltd brought an action against the State of New South Wales in relation to the termination of a contract for the funding of apprenticeship training. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the plaintiff sought an interlocutory mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to honour the remaining term of the contract. The plaintiff argued that the contract was terminated without proper cause and that it would suffer significant financial loss and reputational harm if the contract were not enforced. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the contract was terminated due to breaches by the plaintiff and that there was no justification for the court to intervene.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction to compel the defendant to honour the remaining term of the contract. The court considered the principle that equity will not grant an injunction where there is an adequate remedy at law, and the fact that the contract had only three months remaining to run. The court also considered the potential harm to the plaintiff if the contract were not enforced, and the likelihood of the plaintiff succeeding at trial.

In determining whether to grant the injunction, the court found that there was no issue of principle that would prevent it from doing so. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory mandatory injunction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court considered the potential harm to the plaintiff if the contract were not enforced, and the fact that the contract had only three months remaining to run. The court also found that the defendant had not demonstrated any significant prejudice that would result from the grant of the injunction.

The court granted the plaintiff an interlocutory mandatory injunction, compelling the defendant to honour the remaining term of the contract. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong case for the grant of the injunction, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The court noted that the injunction was interlocutory only and did not prejudice the defendant's right to argue its case at trial. The court ordered the defendant to comply with the terms of the contract and to make payments to the plaintiff in accordance with the contract.