Summary
Temporary injunctions restraining dealings with land in specific-performance suits were set aside. The correspondence did not establish a concluded contract on admitted facts at that stage, while the plaintiff’s delay and substantial intervening payments by another buyer weighed against equitable relief. Whether a contract existed remained for trial, unaffected by the interlocutory observations.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff established grounds for temporary injunction pending specific performance.
- How electronic negotiations, delay and intervening third-party commitments affected interlocutory relief.
Held
- Temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, irreparable injury and favourable balance of convenience. The applicant’s conduct is also material, and discretion must be exercised judicially. (¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 23)
- Emails and WhatsApp exchanges require cumulative assessment and proof at trial. Describing an attachment as a final draft did not itself establish a concluded bargain, and the plaintiff failed at this stage to demonstrate consensus on admitted facts. (¶¶ 17, 21)
- The plaintiff knew of parallel negotiations, received a refund and waited about seven months to sue while substantial third-party payments and expenditure altered the defendants’ position. These developments favoured the defendants on balance of convenience, and the courts below failed to deal with delay. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Existence of a concluded or oral contract remained for trial. Setting aside interim protection did not determine the suits’ merits, and the direction for expedited hearing was reiterated. (¶¶ 14, 21, 24)
Result
Appeals allowed and the temporary injunction orders set aside. The suits must be decided on their own merits without treating the interlocutory observations as final findings; expedited hearing reiterated.