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.
Businessman breached several equitable principles when seeking injunctive relief
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court refused a businessman's application for interlocutory injunctions to restrain the sale of two properties, citing the businessman's failure to come to court with clean hands, abuse of process, and significant delay. The court found that the businessman had not been truthful in claiming use of one property as a family home, which was in fact rented out. Additionally, the court determined that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, as they mirrored issues from previous proceedings that the businessman had failed to prosecute. Despite a potential issue regarding the interpretation of a 2011 facility letter, the court concluded that damages would be an adequate remedy and that the balance of convenience did not favor granting an injunction.
Interlocutory injunction, abuse of process, clean hands doctrine, delay, equitable relief, balance of convenience, damages as remedy, Statute of Limitations, mortgagee power of sale, receiver appointment, property sale, Registration of Title Act 1964, Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, facility letter, Henderson v Henderson, Tanager v Kane, Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Clonmel Healthcare, legal costs, Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.
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.
