Scarel Pty Ltd v City Loan & Credit Corporation Pty Ltd

Scarel Pty Ltd sought an interlocutory injunction against City Loan & Credit Corporation Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around whether Scarel was entitled to a temporary restraining order to prevent City Loan from enforcing a security interest over certain property. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had demonstrated a change in circumstances that warranted the exercise of the court's discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction, despite a previous application being dismissed. The court had to consider whether the altered balance of convenience, in the absence of any change in the merits of the case, justified a different outcome.

The court examined the nature of the relief sought and the criteria for granting interlocutory injunctions. It considered that while the balance of convenience had shifted, there was no change in the merits of the applicant's case. The court noted that the previous application had already been dismissed on the merits, and no new evidence or changed circumstances had been presented that would alter the court's view on the strength of the applicant's case. The court concluded that the exercise of discretion in favour of granting an interlocutory injunction was not warranted under the current circumstances.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an interlocutory injunction and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application. This decision underscored the importance of demonstrating both a prima facie case and a favourable balance of convenience to secure interlocutory relief.