Sanctuary Park Estate Toodyay Pty Ltd v Griffin Plant Hire Pty Ltd

The case of Sanctuary Park Estate Toodyay Pty Ltd v Griffin Plant Hire Pty Ltd involved an application by the plaintiff, Sanctuary Park Estate Toodyay Pty Ltd, for an interlocutory injunction to compel the defendant, Griffin Plant Hire Pty Ltd, to execute and deliver forms of withdrawal of caveat in respect of certain lots of land. The defendant had registered a caveat over the lots in question, claiming an equitable lien as a result of performing subdivisional works under a contract with the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought to complete the sale and settlement of the lots, but the defendant's caveat prevented it from doing so. The court had to determine whether the defendant had an arguable estate or interest in the land sufficient to support the caveat and whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the interlocutory injunction.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court concluded that the defendant did not have an arguable estate or interest in the land sufficient to maintain the caveat. While the court accepted that, in appropriate circumstances, an equitable lien could arise in favour of a contractor who had carried out works on land, it was not satisfied that the defendant's claim met the criteria set out by Deane J in Hewett v Court. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, as the plaintiff would suffer severe financial consequences if it was unable to complete the sales of the lots in question. Therefore, the court granted the interlocutory injunction as sought by the plaintiff.

The court's decision was based on the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions, which require the plaintiff to demonstrate a serious question to be tried, irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience in its favour. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. The court also considered the effect of the deed of agreement executed by the parties, which provided the defendant with alternative security in respect of its claim for the unpaid contract price.