Federal Court of Australia
Ghosh v Newton (No 2) [2024] FCA 559
ORDERS
Applicant | ||
AND: | Respondent | |
DATE OF ORDER: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for an interlocutory injunction in the form of order 4 in the interlocutory application dated 9 May 2024 is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of that application.
3. The matter be listed for a case management hearing and any interlocutory application at 9 am on 24 May 2024.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript
JACKMAN J:
1 In this matter, the applicant, Dr Ghosh, seeks an interlocutory injunction restraining the respondent, or any party except the applicant, from removing any contents from 49 Patricia Avenue, Charlestown, New South Wales, until final determination of the annulment application. Ms Castle of counsel has appeared at relatively short notice for Dr Ghosh and candidly concedes that there is no evidence in support of the application for that interlocutory injunction. Mr Davis appears for the respondent and opposes the application. He relies on his affidavits of 22 April 2024 and 16 May 2024, and tenders Dr Ghosh's affidavit of 15 April 2024.
2 Mr Davis has informed me that a large amount of material has been removed from the property in Charlestown and that he is not aware how much material is left. On 15 March 2024, the respondent gave notice to Dr Ghosh to identify any items which she wished to collect from the property at Charlestown. On 22 April 2024, Mr Davis sent an email to Dr Ghosh in which he said, among other things, that if Dr Ghosh wanted to collect her possessions, then she should email a list of the possessions that she wishes to collect to Mr Davis and Mr Newton, who would then arrange for a member of Mr Newton's staff to enter the property, collect the items, and hand the items to her on the kerb of Patricia Avenue, Charlestown.
3 Earlier this week, on 14 May 2024, Mr Davis sent an email to Dr Ghosh stating that although Mr Newton would be cleaning the property and removing the goods this week, Mr Newton was prepared to consider a request from Dr Ghosh to deliver any items from the property to a local storage facility provided that Dr Ghosh: (a) supply evidence of having entered into a valid storage agreement; and (b) agree expressly that she would not seek to hold the Trustee liable for any such storage or for the delivery and transport of any items to the storage facility.
4 It appears that the first time that any list of items that Dr Ghosh wished to collect from the Charlestown property was provided to Mr Davis or Mr Newton was yesterday, although the contents of that list are not in evidence.
5 In my view, it is not appropriate to grant the interlocutory injunction. There is no demonstration of a serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience is against the grant of the injunction in light of the opportunities which the respondent has made available to Dr Ghosh to arrange for the collection of items from the property. Accordingly, I dismiss the application with costs.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Jackman. |
Associate:
