W & G (Stage 1)

This matter concerned an application by the applicant, W & G, for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, G, from proceeding with a proposed sale of certain land. The dispute arose from a prior agreement between the parties concerning the development of this land, which W & G alleged G had breached.

The primary legal issue before Carmody J was whether W & G had established a sufficient likelihood of success in its claim for specific performance of the development agreement to warrant the grant of an interlocutory injunction. This required the court to consider the enforceability of the agreement and the potential for irreparable harm to W & G if the sale proceeded.

Carmody J reasoned that the agreement, as it stood, lacked the necessary certainty to be specifically enforced. The terms regarding the scope of the development were too vague, and essential elements such as the price and the identity of the developer were not sufficiently defined. Consequently, W & G had not demonstrated a strong enough prima facie case to justify the extraordinary remedy of an interlocutory injunction. The court also considered the balance of convenience, finding that the potential prejudice to G from an injunction outweighed the prejudice to W & G from the sale.

The application for an interlocutory injunction was therefore dismissed.