PRICE -v- IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2000] WASC 318

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 318
Case No:	CIV:2509/2000	Heard:	12 DECEMBER 2000
Coram:	MURRAY J	Delivered:	12/12/00
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	DAVID ROBERT PRICE IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 008 963 684)
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for interlocutory injunction No serious question capable of supporting grant Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Bruce v Tyley (1916) 21 CLR 277 Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124 Re: Inkson's Trusts (1855) 52 ER 878

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : PRICE -v- IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2000] WASC 318 CORAM : MURRAY J HEARD : 12 DECEMBER 2000 DELIVERED : 12 DECEMBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 2509 of 2000 BETWEEN : DAVID ROBERT PRICE

Plaintiff

AND

IMAGINATION ENTERPRISES PTY LTD (ACN 008 963 684)

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for interlocutory injunction - No serious question capable of supporting grant - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr R G S Harrison

Defendant : Mr C Caine

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Deacons

Defendant : Corrin Caine

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Bruce v Tyley (1916) 21 CLR 277
Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL (1996) 185 CLR 124
Re: Inkson's Trusts (1855) 52 ER 878

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: The application is one for interlocutory relief. Although the first injunction sought is in terms a mandatory injunction in its form, concerned with the delivery up to the plaintiff of possession of the residential premises known as the White House situated on the land, together with a right to pass and repass over the land for the plaintiff and his agents and invitees to gain access, as the case has developed it is effectively, I think, that an injunction in prohibitory form is sought preventing the defendant from impeding a right of occupancy asserted by way of a proprietary interest in the particular residential property together with associated rights to have access to it. What is sought is the capacity to occupy it as a home within the concept which the plaintiff asserts arises out of his participation in the enterprise of communal living with its various associated features to which the affidavits refer, the concept of what is described as a "home for life".

2 As Mr Harrison says the claim is effectively to a form of life tenancy gifted, as I would put it, to the plaintiff. It is a claim for a proprietary interest of that kind conditioned by the plaintiff's obligation to maintain the premises and matters of that kind, to pay the outgoings in respect of them, but otherwise rent-free and, as I say, terminable only, the gift having been made in these terms, upon his death or earlier relinquishment of the proprietary interest…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Price v Imagination Enterprises Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] WASC 318
Decision Date: 12 DECEMBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Price v Imagination Enterprises Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Price, and the defendant, Imagination Enterprises Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant from publishing certain content on its website. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to determine whether there was a serious question to be tried that could justify the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The plaintiff argued that the publication of the content would cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction. The defendant contended that the application was premature and that the plaintiff's claims did not present a serious question capable of supporting the injunction.

The court found that the plaintiff's application for an interlocutory injunction turned on its own facts and that there was no serious question to be tried. The court was not satisfied that the plaintiff's claims were strong enough to warrant an injunction at this stage. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not granted the relief sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.