Weston and ANOR v SZEPESVARY and ANOR (No.2)

In the District Court of New South Wales, Judge Riley considered a dispute between the plaintiffs, Weston and another, and the defendants, Szepesvary and another. The proceedings concerned an application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from proceeding with a sale of property.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs had established a serious question to be tried regarding their claim that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duties and acted in contravention of the *Real Property Act 1900* (NSW) by proceeding with the sale of a property. The court was required to assess whether the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending a final determination of the substantive proceedings.

Judge Riley's reasoning focused on the plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate a strong arguable case that the defendants had acted in breach of their fiduciary obligations or statutory duties. The court found that the evidence did not establish that the defendants had acted improperly in their dealings concerning the property sale. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not satisfied the threshold requirement of establishing a serious question to be tried, and therefore, the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an interlocutory injunction.

The court ordered that the application for an interlocutory injunction be dismissed.