Rolfe v George Zakharia Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)

The plaintiffs, Rolfe, sought an interlocutory injunction against the first defendant, George Zakharia Group Pty Ltd, to prevent the removal of their equipment from their rural premises. The second defendant, who was engaged by the first defendant to remove the equipment, transported it a significant distance for storage, resulting in substantial costs to return the equipment. The first defendant disputed the plaintiffs' claim of right to the equipment. On 9 April 2020, the court granted an injunction requiring the first defendant to return the income-earning part of the equipment and to retain the other part. Subsequent facts revealed that the second, third, fourth, and fifth defendants were also involved in the removal of the equipment, but there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the second to fifth defendants were aware that the first defendant's claim of right to the equipment was disputed. The equipment was incurring storage charges to the third defendant at its present location, and the first defendant had no current use for it. The plaintiffs sought variations to the original court orders to accommodate the balance of convenience based on these additional facts.

The court considered whether there had been a change of circumstances that warranted a variation of the original orders. The court noted that the involvement of additional defendants did not alter the fact that the first defendant had removed the equipment without the plaintiffs' consent, and the plaintiffs' claim of right to the equipment remained disputed. The court also considered the storage costs incurred by the third defendant and the first defendant's lack of current use for the equipment. The court concluded that the balance of convenience had shifted in favour of the plaintiffs, and it was in the interests of justice to make variations to the original orders. The court ordered that the first defendant return all the equipment to the plaintiffs and that the third defendant bear the storage costs for the equipment until its return. The court also ordered that the second, fourth, and fifth defendants be joined as parties to the proceedings.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the balance of convenience when making interlocutory injunctions. The court recognised that there had been a change of circumstances that warranted a variation of the original orders, and it acted to accommodate the balance of convenience. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the interests of justice when making orders, and it took into account the storage costs incurred by the third defendant and the first defendant's lack of current use for the equipment. The decision serves as a reminder to parties involved in litigation to keep the court informed of any relevant changes in circumstances that may affect the balance of convenience.