High Court of Australia
Appl Dised Foll "Humphris ae alla Lah "ity
Jupp nha v Oey ie ee = WE
'510
230 HIGH COURT ait
(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)
RAMSAY AND ANOTHER... oT AEE PLAINtIFFs,
AND
ABERFOYLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY | (AUSTRALIA) PROPRIETARY LIMITED } Responvent AND ANOTHER . |
DEFENDANTS,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.
H.C. or A. Injunction—Suit by Attorney-General—Infringement of municipal by-law— 1935. Government Act 1928 (Vict.) (No. 3720), sec. 197 (5), (6).
Se MeLpourne,
'The defendants were proceeding to erect a factory within an area in the erection of a factory was prohibited by a municipal by-law. The by 26; Dec. imposed penalties for its infringement and also provided that, where a buildi
— was erected contrary to the by-law, the council of the municipality otha Cr have the building pulled down. R. owned land adjacent to the factory s and Meiernan Jp an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria by R., and by the Attome General of Victoria at the relation of R., the plaintiffs applied for an inter locutory injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding with
erection of the factory. 'The application was refused.
Held, by Latham C.3., Rich and McTiernan JJ. (Starke J. dissenting), the injunction was rightly refused.
Per Latham ©.J.: The legislation authorizing the by-law and the by-!
Parliament intended to be exhaustive, and the general interest of the pul in the observance of the law was not alone sufficient to justify the Court i granting an injunction at the suit of the Attorney-General.
Per Rich J.: The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in re the special remedy of interlocutory injunction notwithstanding the Atto General's fiat.
54. C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA
Per McTiernan J. : Although the by-law affected the interests of the public, the Attorney-General was not entitled to enforce it by the equitable remedy of injunction, as the by-law did not create any right for which this was an appropriate remedy ; for, while the breach of the by-law, as in the case of any other law, might impair the general welfare, it did not interfere with the right of the public to the enjoyment of any positive interest or advantage.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate