Raymond & Anor v. Sudholz Pty Ltd

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Raymond & Anor v. Sudholz Pty Ltd involved an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the auction of land by a second mortgagee. The applicants, Stephen Lewis Raymond and William Edward Raymond, sought to restrain Sudholz Pty Ltd, the second mortgagee and earthworks contractor, from proceeding with the auction. The second mortgagee had entered into a contract with the applicants to perform subdivisional works, but disputes arose over the quality of the work and payment terms. The applicants claimed that an agreement was reached in March 2006, where the financier would continue to fund the development, the respondent would carry the costs of the work, and a deed of variation would be executed to provide the respondent with a second registered mortgage. However, the draft documentation produced by the respondent's solicitors did not reflect the terms of this agreement, and the applicants signed the documents under duress due to economic pressure.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had established a good arguable case that the mortgage was not valid and if the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. The court found that the applicants had shown a good arguable case that the mortgage was invalid due to the alleged economic duress. The judge referenced the stringent test for economic duress, stating that while the will of the party subjected to pressure need not be overborne, the pressure must compel or leave no real choice. The court concluded that the applicants had met this test based on the evidence presented. Regarding the balance of convenience, the judge noted that while the applicants had a hope of refinancing the development, it was unlikely to succeed, and the respondent would likely receive nothing from the auction proceeds. The judge granted the injunction, directing the application to be treated as a claim with expedited timelines for pleadings and document disclosure.

The court's final orders included granting the injunction, treating the application as a claim with abbreviated pleading and disclosure times, reserving costs, and encouraging the parties to consider a non-litigious resolution. The judge urged the parties to consult their legal advisors for a commercial solution, noting that it was not appropriate to order mediation at that time.