Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Injunction to prevent sale of investment property refused as plaintiffs fail to demonstrate any serious issue to be tried
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused the plaintiffs' application for an injunction to prevent the sale of an investment property by a finance company and receiver, finding that the plaintiffs failed to raise any fair question to be tried. The court determined that the finance company held a valid mortgage and was entitled to appoint a receiver with a power of sale. Arguments advanced by the plaintiffs, including claims that the receiver was invalidly appointed, that signatures were forged, and that the property was landlocked, were found to lack merit. The court concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy, the plaintiffs' undertaking as to damages was without substance, and the balance of justice weighed against granting the injunction, particularly as the property was an investment asset rather than a family home. The court also noted that any issues of trespass onto adjacent land by the defendants were irrelevant to the proceedings.
injunction – interlocutory relief – receiver sale – mortgage default – investment property – undertaking as to damages – balance of justice – appointment of receiver – alleged invalid deed – claim of landlocked property – trespass on adjacent land – adequacy of damages – Rules of the Superior Courts (RSC) – Registration of Titles Act 1964
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
