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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses an application for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the eviction of a woman and her children from a property pending a constitutional challenge against the Family Home Protection Act 1976. The court found that the applicant, who has resided in the property since 2006 and shares three children with the property's owner, had not acted with sufficient expedition in seeking the injunction and lacked the means to provide an undertaking for damages. The court also noted that the property's owner had a presumptively valid right to possession, and the balance of justice weighed against granting the injunction. The original court had granted a stay of 18 months on the possession order, which has since expired. The applicant's claim of misrepresentation was struck out, but her constitutional challenge against the Act of 1976 will proceed.
Family Home Protection Act 1976, constitutional challenge, interlocutory injunction, eviction, non-marital family home, Dromin House, delay, undertaking for damages, balance of justice, possession order, misrepresentation claim, statutory declaration, mortgage, arrears, Supreme Court appeal.
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.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.