NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sharpe v Grobbel [2017] NSWSC 2 Hearing dates: 3 January 2017 Decision date: 09 January 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Robb J Decision: See pars 201- 206 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – claim by plaintiffs for extension of interlocutory injunction – held interlocutory injunction should not be extended because the balance of convenience does not favour the extension – plaintiffs had established serious question to be tried in relation to their claims for relief – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 198; [2001] HCA 63 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill (2006) 227 CLR 57; [2006] HCA 46 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Frederick Patrick Sharpe (first plaintiff) Joel Francis Fleming (second plaintiff) Christoph Grobbel (first defendant) Renat Heuberger (second defendant) South Pole Holdings (third defendant) Representation: Counsel: G Parker SC (first and second plaintiffs) J Giles SC/AJ Byrne (first, second and third defendants)
Solicitors: Garland Hawthorn Brahe (plaintiffs) Dentons Australia (defendants) File Number(s): 2016/384961 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
Issue 1. The question before the court is whether an interlocutory order made by Slattery J on 22 December 2016 should be extended, and if so on what terms.
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