Melewar Steel Ventures Limited v ANZ Nominees Limited; Terpu v ANZ Nominees Limited

The dispute before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales involved claims by Melewar Steel Ventures Limited and Terpu (the appellants) against ANZ Nominees Limited (the respondent). The appellants alleged they had an interest in shares that had been transferred to a broker, who in turn transferred them to ANZ Nominees. The appellants contended that the transactions with the broker were induced by misrepresentations that they merely provided security over the shares, and that ANZ Nominees had notice of this. The core of the dispute concerned whether the appellants had established a serious question to be tried against ANZ Nominees, and whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to preserve the status quo pending a full trial.

The Court was required to determine whether the appellants had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on their claims to warrant the grant of interlocutory relief. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the appellants had established a serious question to be tried regarding their proprietary interest in the shares and whether ANZ Nominees had received the shares with notice of the appellants' alleged equitable rights. Furthermore, the court had to assess the balance of convenience, including whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the appellants if their claims were ultimately successful.

The Court of Appeal ultimately refused leave to appeal and dismissed the summonses with costs, dissolving earlier injunctions that had been extended by the Court. The reasoning, as articulated by Spigelman CJ, Mason P, and Hodgson JA, focused on the appellants' failure to establish a serious question to be tried against ANZ Nominees. The Court found that the appellants had not demonstrated a sufficient basis to suggest that ANZ Nominees had notice of any alleged equity held by the appellants in the shares. Consequently, the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of interlocutory relief, as the appellants had not shown that damages would be an insufficient remedy.