Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No 2]

(2017) 55 WAR 36; [2017] WASCA 76

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equity
2. › Injunction
3. › Interlocutory injunction
4. › Mandatory interlocutory injunction
5. › Mandatory interlocutory injunction to pay money
6. › Whether equity demonstrated for interlocutory mandatory relief compelling payment of disputed debts
7. › Whether inadequacy of legal remedies established
8. › Whether undertaking as to damages sufficient where respondent unlikely able to repay
1. Equity
2. › Injunction
3. › Interlocutory injunction
4. › Mandatory interlocutory injunction
5. › Distinction between specific performance of contractual obligation and enforcement of debt
6. › Whether mandatory interlocutory injunction available to compel payment of disputed debt
7. › Whether interlocutory payment orders circumvent summary judgment procedure
1. Equity
2. › Injunction
3. › Interlocutory injunction
4. › Balance of convenience
5. › Whether 'restoring balance' between parties arising from earlier injunction proceedings a relevant consideration
6. › Whether earlier interlocutory restraint of respondent relevant to grant of mandatory interlocutory payment orders
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from interlocutory injunction
4. › Discretionary decision
5. › Whether primary judge acted on wrong principle or allowed extraneous matters to guide decision
6. › House v The King principles

Quick Take

A mandatory interlocutory injunction cannot be used to compel payment of a disputed debt where the common law remedy of debt is adequate, and such orders effectively circumvent summary judgment procedure. The concept of 'restoring balance' between parties arising from earlier interlocutory proceedings is not a proper basis for mandatory interlocutory payment orders. Where a court finds a strong likelihood that the applicant cannot repay money paid under interlocutory orders if the respondent succeeds at trial, the applicant's undertaking as to damages is insufficient to support such orders.