Legal Research
Cases
Varley v Varley

Varley v Varley

Case [2006] NSWSC 1025 22 September 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Varley v Varley [2006] NSWSC 1025
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 22 September 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
22 September 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 09/22/2006

DECISION: Interlocutory injunction refused

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY LAW AND CHILD WELFARE - DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS - orders made for accounting questions to be decided by referee - application for interlocutory injunction pending referee's report - whether necessary to prove irreparable injury - no undertaking as to damages proffered - whether any general principle that no undertaking as to damages needed for interlocutory injunction granted under Property (Relationships) Act 1984 - whether any general principle that undertaking as to damages not needed if applicant is impecunious or in straitened circumstances - INJUNCTIONS - interlocutory injunctions - whether proof of irreparable injury for which damages will not be an adequate compensation is always needed - role of undertaking as to damages - whether any principle that undertaking as to damages not needed if applicant is impecunious or in straitened circumstances - PRACTICE - role of legal practitioner attending on taking of judgment

LEGISLATION CITED: Family Law Act 1975
Fatal Accidents Act 1976
Property (Relationships) Act 1984
Testators Family Maintenance Act
Trade Practices Act 1974

CASES CITED: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Phillip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Adams v Bank of NSW [1984] 1 NSWLR 285
Allen v Jambo Holdings Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 1252; [1980] 2 All ER 502
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
Blue Seas Investments Pty Ltd v Victor Mitchell (1999) 25 Fam LR 65
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v the State of South Australia (1986) 161 CLR 148
Circaz Pty Ltd v Manolidis [2003] 45 ACSR 542
Colin D Young Pty Ltd v Commercial and General Acceptance Ltd (1982) NSW ConvR 55-097
Custom Credit Corporation Limited v Whitehall Holdings Pty Ltd, unreported, 7 April 1992
Dein v Bealey [1960] NSWR 385
Epitoma Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union (1984) 3 FCR 55
Re Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR(NSW) 318
Heavener v Loomes (1924) 34 CLR 306
Murphy v Lush (1986) 60 ALJR 523
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 195 CLR 1
Silktone Pty Ltd v Devreal Capital Pty Ltd (1990) 21 NSWLR 317
Southern Tableland Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd (in liq) v Schomberg (1986) 11 ACLR 337
Szentessy v Woo Ran (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 64 ACTR 98
Third Chandris Shipping Corp v Unimarine SA [1979] QB 645
Ben Ward v State of Western Australia, 21 December 1995 unreported, BC 9501998

PARTIES: John Anthony Varley - Plaintiff
Alexandria Margaret Varley - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4946/04

COUNSEL: C Simpson - Plaintiff
RJ Brender; DB Beukes - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Newnhams - Plaintiff
Paul & Paul - Defendant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EQUITY LIST

CAMPBELL J

FRIDAY 22 SEPTEMBER…

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 Varley v Varley

Details

AGLC: Varley v Varley [2006] NSWSC 1025
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1025
Decision Date: 22/09/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Varley v Varley involved a dispute between the parties regarding financial matters arising from their de facto relationship. The primary issue before the court was whether an interlocutory injunction could be granted pending the determination of accounting questions by a referee, and specifically, whether the necessity to prove irreparable injury could be waived in such circumstances. The respondent argued that the applicant must demonstrate an irreparable injury and provide an undertaking as to damages, a requirement typically associated with interlocutory injunctions.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by the Property (Relationships) Act 1984 and considered whether a general principle exists that an undertaking as to damages is not required if the applicant is impecunious or in straitened circumstances. The court further deliberated on the broader role of undertakings as to damages in the context of interlocutory injunctions. It was acknowledged that, traditionally, proof of irreparable injury is essential for such relief, but the court also recognised the potential hardship faced by financially disadvantaged applicants. The court concluded that while the general rule requires an undertaking as to damages, there may be exceptional circumstances where this requirement could be relaxed, particularly when the applicant is unable to provide such an undertaking due to financial constraints.

The court found that in this case, the applicant's inability to provide an undertaking as to damages did not necessarily preclude the grant of an interlocutory injunction, especially given the potential for significant financial loss if the injunction was not granted. The court also noted the importance of the role played by legal practitioners in advising clients on the implications of such applications. Ultimately, the court determined that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction pending the referee's report.

Orders