Naso v Danehill Nominees Pty Ltd

In the case of Naso v Danehill Nominees Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Bianca Rosie Naso, sought an injunction against the first, second, and third defendants, as well as the Registrar of Titles, Tony Grego, without giving notice to them. The injunction was initially granted on 3 November 2006. The defendants then applied to discharge the injunction, arguing that the injunction was obtained without following proper procedural fairness and that confidential information from mediation was improperly used in the application. The court had to decide whether the injunction should be discharged and if the defendants' legal advisers should bear the costs of the application. The court found that the application for the injunction was made improperly, as it breached the duty of confidentiality imposed by the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) and failed to disclose relevant information to the judge. The court also found that the injunction would significantly prejudice ongoing negotiations between other parties involved in the case. As a result, the court discharged the injunction and ordered that the costs of the application be borne by the plaintiff's legal advisers on an indemnity basis. The plaintiff has the liberty to re-apply for an injunction, but it must be done with proper notice and in the usual course.