Varma v Varma (No. 2)

The applicant, Varma, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, Varma, from taking steps to enforce a judgment pending the determination of an appeal. The application was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had established a sufficient case to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction, specifically considering the balance of convenience. The Court was required to assess whether the potential harm to the applicant if the injunction were refused outweighed the potential harm to the respondent if it were granted.

McColl JA considered the principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions pending appeal. Her Honour noted that such injunctions are not granted as a matter of course and require a strong case to be made out. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal, nor had they established that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the injunction. The applicant's submissions did not raise any question of principle that would justify departing from the usual course of allowing the judgment to be enforced.

Consequently, the Notice of Motion seeking the interlocutory injunction was dismissed with costs.