Case: Australian Broadcasting Commission v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199
Outcome: followed
turn to the second proceeding and the causes of action relied upon by the applicants. It is a well accepted principle that it is not open to me to grant an interlocutory injunction in the air in the absence of a cause of action to be adjudicated upon at trial. It was made clear in Australian Broadcasting Commission v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 208 CLR 199 that an interlocutory injunction should only be granted by a court in support of a known cause of action upon which the applicant for the interlocutory injunction wishes to rely at trial. The applicants relied upon the following causes of action: (a) The proposal by the Housing Associations to enter into the sub-leases constitutes oppressive conduct and conduct not in the interests of the members of the Housing Associations as a whole giving rise to causes of action under s 109 of the Associations Act and s 166 of the Aboriginal Corporations Act. The 40 year sub-leases were not in the interests of the members of the Housing Associations as a whole because the Associations were giving away their control of the management of the tenancies of the individual residents to the Commonwealth which was outside the objectives of each Housing Association. This control was being given away for $1 per year and there was no guarantee by the Minister that any part of the proposed expenditure of $100 million in respect of the town camps would be allocated to any particular or specific Housing Association. It was further submitted that the 40 year sub-leases did not protect the current rights of occupancy of the tenants under their tenancy agreements; (b) The constitutions of the Housing Associations constituted contracts with their members and the entry of the Housing Associations into the sub-leases would be contrary to the objectives of the Housing Associations and would therefore constitute a breach of their constitutions which the Minister was inducing; (c) The decision to enter into the 40 year sub-leases was ultra vires the Housing Associations; (d) The management committee of each Housing Association was in breach of the fiduciary duty they owed to the Association and its members by agreeing to enter into the sub-leases. (e) The entry by the Housing Associations into the sub-leases constituted a breach of contract as the sub-leases would constitute a breach of the individual tenancy agreements of the tenants of the Housing Associations; (f) The Minister was engaging in the tort of intimidation by unlawful means in that she was intimidating the Housing Associations to enter into the sub-leases when she had not accorded procedural fairness to the individual tenants; (g) Section 20CA of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act had not been complied with as the Housing Associations were required to make a request to the Minister to enter into the sub-leases but that request had to be voluntary. The requests made by the Housing Associations were not voluntary. In the circumstances as they developed in the course of the hearing I do not consider that it is necessary to reach a conclusion whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to each of the causes of action relied upon by the applicants. I am satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried that if they now enter into the sub-leases the Housing Associations will not be acting in the interests of their members as a whole thereby giving rise to a cause of action under s 109 of the Associations Act and s 166 of the Aboriginal Corporations Act. Under their Constitutions the only way a person can become a member of the relevant Housing Association is if that person is a resident of the town camp which is situated on the land which is comprised in the perpetual lease or Crown Lease held by the Association.