The bank granted loan facilities to a farmer, secured over his farms and guaranteed by his wife. The farmer defaulted and the bank appointed receivers and managers to the farm. The farmer refused to allow the receivers access and the receivers sought orders that the farmer vacate the farm.
The court found that the bank had a strong case. In contrast the court found that the farmer’s assertions were not supported by evidence and none were obviously strong. The court also noted that the farmer’s complaint about the sale price of another property owned by a company at undervalue did not impeach the bank’s title to the farms or provide any reason to refuse to permit the bank and receivers to exercise their legal rights in relation to the farm.
The court found no arguable defence to the bank’s claim for possession. The court noted that a comparison of the relative injustices that would be suffered with and without the injunctions favoured the bank. The court noted that the bank had a strong case, the farmer has no defence of substance, the farmer will not give up possession without injunctions, the receivers need to be in a position to give vacant possession to perform their duties and the bank provided an undertaking as to damages.
The court ordered the farmer to vacate the farm.