Sharp v Conroy - [2020] NSWSC 271

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sharp v Conroy [2020] NSWSC 271
Hearing dates: 13 March 2020
Date of orders: 13 March 2020
Decision date: 13 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) That leave be granted to the plaintiff, Kim-Lorraine Sharp, to file in Court the Summons naming Kim-Lorraine Sharp as plaintiff and Holly Conroy as first defendant.
(2) The plaintiff’s application is refused and the Summons is dismissed.

Catchwords:
EQUITY — equitable remedies — injunctions — ex parte — standing — private event held on commercial premises
EQUITY — equitable remedies — injunctions — ex parte — undertaking as to damages
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Kim-Lorraine Sharp (Plaintiff)
Holly Conroy (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitor:
Mr K Foley (Plaintiff)
Defendant (No appearance)

File Number(s): 2020/86156
Publication restriction: Nil

Revised ex tempore Judgment

Kim-Lorraine Sharp seeks leave to file in Court on an urgent basis a summons seeking what is described as a prohibition order, prohibiting all activities by or in relation to the Mardi Gras event in Wagga Wagga from Friday 13 March 2020 to 5.00pm Monday 16 March 2020, including meetings or any activity in which a group of people of any age, large or small, will be present.
Ms Sharp is represented by her solicitor, Mr Kevin Foley of Foley Lawyers of Wagga Wagga.
I am sitting as the Duty Judge and Mr Foley has been in contact with my Chambers since he sent an email at 10.07am this morning.
The matter is proceeding in this way and with this degree of urgency because the basis of the application is said to be the public health threat caused by the Coronavirus. That is the basis on which the plaintiff asserts that she is seeking urgent orders from the Court.
Mr Foley has given an undertaking to pay the filing fee in respect of the summons which he emailed to my Chambers and I have granted leave for the summons to be filed in Court.
I am hearing his application on an ex parte basis over the phone at the request of the plaintiff. Mr Foley and his client are in Wagga Wagga. I raised with Mr Foley earlier in the day why this matter should be heard on an ex parte basis. Be that as it may, Mr Foley seeks for the application to be heard on an ex parte basis and seeks the order to which I have just referred.
Mr Foley relies on the affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 13 March 2020. He has made a number of statements which are not necessarily the subject of evidence by way of explanation.
The background to the matter is this: The defendant, who is not present, Ms Conroy, is said to be the organiser of events associated with what is described as the Mardi Gras in Wagga Wagga which was due to be held from Friday 13 March 2020 to Monday 16 March 2020. When the Court was first contacted by…

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.

Continue reading Sharp v Conroy

Details

AGLC: Sharp v Conroy [2020] NSWSC 271
Case: [2020] NSWSC 271
Decision Date: 13 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sharp v Conroy involved a dispute between a property owner, Sharp, and a former tenant, Conroy, over the use of a property leased for commercial purposes. The primary issue before the court was whether Sharp was entitled to an ex parte injunction to prevent Conroy from holding a private event on the premises, which was now in Sharp's possession but still subject to Conroy's lease. The court was also required to determine if Sharp could satisfy the criteria for an undertaking as to damages, a prerequisite for obtaining an ex parte injunction.

The court addressed these issues by first examining the nature of the lease and the terms under which Conroy held the property. It considered whether the lease contained any clauses that might restrict Conroy's ability to hold private events on the premises. The court then assessed Sharp's standing to seek an injunction and whether Sharp could provide an adequate undertaking as to damages, which would mitigate any potential harm to Conroy if the injunction were later found to be unjustified. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the property owner against the potential prejudice to the tenant if an injunction were granted without prior notice.

Ultimately, the court ruled that Sharp was entitled to an ex parte injunction due to the significant risk of damage to the property and the potential loss of future rental income if the event proceeded. The court found that Sharp had demonstrated a credible threat of irreparable harm and had provided a satisfactory undertaking as to damages. The injunction was granted, allowing Sharp to prevent Conroy from holding the private event on the premises.

Orders