Partington v Pacific Link Community Housing Ltd
Case
•
[2013] NSWCA 67
•25 March 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Partington v Pacific Link Community Housing Ltd [2013] NSWCA 67
[2013] NSWCA 67
25 March 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Partington v Pacific Link Community Housing Ltd*, the appellant sought urgent interlocutory relief, including reinstatement to premises from which he had been evicted, pending the hearing of his appeal. The respondent sought security for costs and orders regulating communications between the parties. The matter came before Ward JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the appellant was entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction for his reinstatement to the premises, whether the respondent should be granted security for its costs, and what orders, if any, should be made regarding communications between the parties in relation to the proceedings. The appellant also raised grounds concerning bias, though the specific nature of these grounds is not detailed in the provided text.
Ward JA dismissed the appellant's application for reinstatement, indicating that the threshold for such an injunction was not met. The Court ordered that the appellant provide security for the respondent's costs. Furthermore, specific orders were made concerning the individuals to whom, and the manner in which, correspondence or communications relating to these proceedings should be directed. The costs of the various motions were awarded in favour of the respondent.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the appellant was entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction for his reinstatement to the premises, whether the respondent should be granted security for its costs, and what orders, if any, should be made regarding communications between the parties in relation to the proceedings. The appellant also raised grounds concerning bias, though the specific nature of these grounds is not detailed in the provided text.
Ward JA dismissed the appellant's application for reinstatement, indicating that the threshold for such an injunction was not met. The Court ordered that the appellant provide security for the respondent's costs. Furthermore, specific orders were made concerning the individuals to whom, and the manner in which, correspondence or communications relating to these proceedings should be directed. The costs of the various motions were awarded in favour of the respondent.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Injunction
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Shirvington v Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) [2017] FCAFC 22
Cases Citing This Decision
7
Partington v Pacific Link Housing Ltd
[2013] NSWCA 259
Clarke v GEO Australia Pty Limited
[2023] NSWSC 716
Cases Cited
10
Statutory Material Cited
5
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li
[2013] HCA 18
Preston v Harbour Pacific Underwriting Management Pty Ltd
[2007] NSWCA 247
Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd
[2004] NSWCA 136