Bradto Pty Ltd v Vic; Tymbook Pty Ltd v Vic

(2006) 15 VR 65; [2006] VSCA 89

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Injunction
2. › Interlocutory injunction
3. › Test for grant
4. › Whether prohibitory or mandatory in nature
5. › Whether 'high degree of assurance' or 'lower risk of injustice' the appropriate test for mandatory injunctions in Victoria
6. › Whether single test should apply to all interlocutory injunctions
1. Injunction
2. › Interlocutory injunction
3. › Interlocutory relief tantamount to final relief
4. › Whether applicant must show higher degree of likelihood of success at trial
5. › Whether special rule required
1. Injunction
2. › Interlocutory injunction
3. › Serious question to be tried
4. › Balance of convenience
5. › Appellate review of discretionary decision
6. › Whether error of law identified
1. Real Property
2. › Crown leases
3. › Covenant permitting lessor to enter and examine state and condition of demised premises
4. › Whether right of entry limited to inspection for purpose of repair
5. › Whether 'examine' limited to visual inspection
6. › Whether buildings erected on land form part of demised premises
7. › Revocation and Excision of Crown Reservations Act 1955 (Vic)

Quick Take

In Victoria, the appropriate test for all interlocutory injunctions — whether prohibitory or mandatory — is the Hoffman 'lower risk of injustice' test: the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it turns out to have been wrong. There is no special 'high degree of assurance' test for mandatory injunctions. Similarly, there is no special rule for interlocutory injunctions tantamount to final relief; the plaintiff's prospects of success are always a relevant factor in the balance of convenience analysis.