Mendonca v Mason

The case of Mendonca v Mason involved an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the mortgagee in possession from excluding the applicant, who was a tenant under an alleged lease, from occupying the premises in question. The case was heard in a court where the plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant from enforcing their rights under a mortgage and evicting the plaintiff from the premises. The nature of the dispute was centred on the validity of the lease and the rights of the tenant against the mortgagee in possession.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of a lease and whether the applicant's ultimate success at trial was probable enough to warrant an interim injunction. Additionally, the court had to consider whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant if the application for an injunction was refused and weigh the balance of convenience in deciding whether to grant the injunction.

The court found that while there was a serious question to be tried regarding the existence of a lease, the probability of the applicant’s ultimate success at trial was relatively low. The court considered that damages would be an adequate remedy for the applicant if the injunction was not granted. Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction, as the applicant's occupation of the premises could cause significant disruption to the defendant's interests if the lease was not ultimately upheld. As a result, the application for an interlocutory injunction was refused.