A person may apply to a court for an injunction in order to prevent threatened or actual and ongoing infringement of that person’s legal rights. When hearing an application for an injunction, most courts have jurisdiction to award damages instead of, or together with, an injunction. The Queensland Supreme Court has recently provided some guidance regarding the circumstances in which a court might do so.

Disputes regarding retail tenancies are typically the exclusive province of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Victoria in the recent case of AMJE Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 777 held that the Court possesses jurisdiction in circumstances where, turning on a point of statutory interpretation, the plaintiff had made a claim that was not in fact a ‘retail tenancy dispute’ in the strict sense.

The Court of Appeal in Australian Dream Homes Pty Ltd v Stojanovski [2016] VSCA 38 recently considered an application for security for costs. The Court’s decision provides some guidance for parties seeking to make such applications, highlighting in particular the importance of enquiring about the financial health of the opponent as well as the relevance of delay.

The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision in Yuksels Nominees Pty Ltd v Nguyen & Anor [2015] VSC 663 provides some useful guidance about the removal of caveats under the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The case also considers the relevance of other court proceedings instigated by the caveator and whether an application to remove the caveat might in such a situation be 'vexatious'.

The significance of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 and the role of legislative intent in determining its scope have been reiterated in a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal.