Iscorp Investment v Yohana [2011] NSWSC 17

Iscorp and Yohana were involved in a dispute as to ownership of a property.
Iscorp sought an interim injunction to prevent Yohana from selling the property until the final dispute was determined.

The Judge considered that: 

  1. The purpose of such an injunction is to preserve the status quo;
  2. A Judge must look at the course best suited to achieving justice between the parties in the circumstances;
  3. The Judge should not conduct a preliminary trial but should identify the legal and equitable rights which will be determined at trial;

The Judge indicated that an injunction should be granted in circumstances where there is a serious question to be tried (with likelihood of success) and where the party who is seeking the injunction will suffer greater prejudice if an injunction is not granted than if it was. He did so in this case because:

  1. The ultimate remedy sought by Iscorp was to have the property transferred back to it;
  2. If Yohana sold the property that remedy would no longer be available;
  3. The evidence required complex analysis as there were a number of documents and also conversations between the parties to be determined;

Click here to read the full judgment

Scroll to Top