Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2004] NSWSC 1268

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Metropolitan Petar v Mitreski [2004] NSWSC 1268 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 December 2004 JUDGMENT DATE : 16 December 2004 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : Ex parte injunction granted for limited period.

CATCHWORDS : EQUITY [332] - Equitable remedies - Injunctions - Interlocutory injunctions - Jurisdiction and generally - Ex parte injunction - Circumstances in which granted for short time. His Grace Metropolitan Petar, the Diocesan Bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand (P1) The Very Reverend Father Mitko Mitrev (P2) Lambe Mitreski (D1) Pero Damceski (D2) PARTIES : Boris Minovski (D3) Eftim Eftimov (D4) Mile Marcevski (D5) Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Incorporated (D6) Naum Despotovski (D8) Attorney General for State of NSW (D9) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 3369/97 T G R Parker and R E Steele (Ps) COUNSEL : G O Blake SC (D1 - 6 & D8) V Colaluce (Solicitor) (D9) Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Ps) SOLICITORS : McConnell Jaffray (D1 - 6 & 8) I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (D9)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2004

3369/97 HIS EMINENCE PETAR THE DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE MACEDONIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE OF AUSTRALIA & NEW ZEALAND & ORS v LAMBE MITRESKI & ORS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: In this matter there were interlocutory orders made by me on 3 July 2003 recording an agreement in essence between the first plaintiff and the sixth defendant that Father Zoran Alexovski should be brought from Macedonia to take the position of the priest at the St Petka Church ("the Church"). The evidence is that an employment agreement was entered into between the sixth defendant and Father Alexovski, who is, at last, on the point of arriving from Macedonia. There has been unclear correspondence from Father Alexovski as to his attitude toward the continuation of that agreement, but it is in my view arguable that the agreement is still on foot. 2 The evidence shows that the first plaintiff is requiring that Father Alexovski not officiate at services at the Church until its reconsecration, the necessity of which is contested among the parties. More importantly, he appears to have required Father Alexovski not to go to the Church at all and to be threatening to request or require Father Alexovski to officiate at the Frederick Street Church, which is not connected with the sixth defendant. He has also threatened to pay or have the Archdiocese pay Father Alexovski a stipend of $1,600 per month on his arrival in Australia, which is quite inconsistent with Father Alexovski's employment under the contract with the sixth defendant as a priest at the Church at approximately the same stipend. 3 This material seems to me to justify the grant ex parte for a short time of the injunction which will be contained in short minutes. The balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction for that short time.