Maxiwealth Holdings Pty Ltd v The Mill Goulburn Pty Ltd

The matter before the court involved Maxiwealth Holdings Pty Ltd, a purchaser, and The Mill Goulburn Pty Ltd, a trustee, in relation to an agreement to acquire units in a unit trust. The dispute arose when the purchaser sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the trustee from dealing with the principal asset of the trust, following a purported termination of the agreement. The court was required to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried regarding the continued existence of the agreement, and if so, whether the balance of convenience favoured the imposition of the restraint.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a serious question to be tried that the agreement to acquire units in the unit trust remained in effect despite the purported termination, and if so, whether the balance of convenience favoured the imposition of an interlocutory injunction. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and examined the terms of the agreement and relevant contractual provisions.

The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the continued existence of the agreement. It was held that the evidence presented by the purchaser was sufficient to establish that the agreement was still in force, despite the purported termination. The court further found that the balance of convenience favoured the imposition of the interlocutory injunction to restrain the trustee from dealing with the principal asset of the trust. The court considered factors such as the risk of harm to the purchaser if the restraint was not imposed, the risk of harm to the trustee if the restraint was imposed, and the respective positions of the parties. Based on this analysis, the court granted the interlocutory injunction on the conditions specified.

In conclusion, the court granted the purchaser's application for an interlocutory injunction, restraining the trustee from dealing with the principal asset of the trust. The court found that there was a serious question to be tried regarding the continued existence of the agreement and that the balance of convenience favoured the imposition of the restraint. The terms and conditions of the injunction were specified by the court to ensure fairness to both parties.