Welldog Pty Ltd v Prox Pty Ltd

[2017] WASCA 62

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Injunctions
3. › Interlocutory injunctions
4. › Restraint of mortgagee or chargee from exercising powers under instruments of security
5. › General rule in Inglis v Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia
6. › Whether payment into court of secured indebtedness required as condition of injunction
7. › Exceptions to the general rule
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Injunctions pending appeal
3. › Criteria for grant of interim injunction pending determination of appeal
4. › Assessment of decision under appeal and balance of convenience
5. › Whether refusal would render appeal nugatory

Quick Take

The general rule in Inglis requiring payment into court of the secured indebtedness as a condition of an interlocutory injunction restraining a mortgagee/chargee applies by analogy to non-mortgagor parties whose equitable claims to restrain enforcement are based, to a significant extent, on the mortgagor's claims against the secured creditor. A strong balance of convenience favouring the applicant may be decisively outweighed by the weakness of the case on the serious question, inadequacy of the secured property, and inadequacy of undertakings as to damages.