Injunction relief for client in Surpreme Court
A recent decision of Justice Strk in The Owners of Smiths Beach Resort Strata Plan 49006 v Hadley [2004] WASC 137 provides a useful example of the Court’s ability to issue orders compelling a party to undertake a certain act, within a very short timeframe.
McLeod Fisher & Hamdorf acted for the Owners of Smiths Beach Resort Strata Plan 49006 (Plaintiff) in the Supreme Court of Western Australia regarding an application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction.
The Plaintiff made the urgent interlocutory application seeking orders that the Defendant, a private landowner, assist the Plaintiff’s solicitors in negotiating with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) for a temporary short term licence to take water under s 5C of the Rights in Water Irrigation Act 1914 (WA).
An interlocutory injunction is an interim Court ordered remedy to either compel or restrain a party from doing a certain act. Interlocutory injunctions are not lightly ordered by the Court and must balance the risk of injustice being done.
The issue in this case related to a dispute over the supply of water from the Defendant’s land to the Plaintiff’s resort. The Defendant turned off the water supply to the resort, which left the Plaintiff at significant commercial and reputational risk.
McLeod Fisher & Hamdorf commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court, and filed an application to have the interlocutory application heard. Due to the time sensitive nature of the matter, a hearing to determine the matter was listed the following afternoon.
Justice Strk ordered that the Defendant sign a written authority to allow Glen McLeod, of McLeod Fisher & Hamdorf, to negotiate with the DWER on behalf of the Defendant to obtain a short-term water licence. Further, the fendant was ordered to continue to supply water to the Plaintiff until the specified limit under the Defendant’s existing water licence was reached.
The decision of Justice Strk was made on the basis that there was a greater risk of injustice being done to the Plaintiff if she were to refuse the injunction application, than the risk of injustice to the Defendant.
This case presents as a good example of how expeditiously a party can receive injunctive relief from the Court in certain circumstances. The matter was heard within 24 hours of making the application, with the Plaintiff receiving Court orders within less than 2 days, allowing the water supply to the resort to continue.
If you would like any further information or to discuss a relevant issue of your own, please contact us by telephone on (08) 6460 5179 or email admin@mfhlaw.com.au.