Page:Government of the Russian Federation v Commonwealth of Australia.pdf/10

Jagot J

Consideration

24 The difficulty for the GRF in relation to the current application is that there has been a material change in circumstances between 2022 and the present date. The material change in circumstances is the commencement of the Act itself, which provides, by legislation, for termination of the lease.

25 The Commonwealth has provided detailed written submissions in support of its position that the interlocutory application should be refused both because the GRF has failed to establish a prima facie case or a serious question to be tried, and because there are no compelling circumstances that would support an interlocutory injunction to restrain the enforcement of a statute.

26 As the Commonwealth has pointed out, in order to establish a prima facie case, the GRF must show that it has a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the preservation of the status quo pending the trial, and the required strength of that likelihood of success depends, at least in part, upon the nature of the rights that the GRF seeks to assert and the practical consequences likely to flow from the orders sought.

27 Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill refers to the decision of Mason A-CJ in Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia in respect of interlocutory injunctions pending the determination of the validity of legislation. In Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd, Mason A-CJ said :

"The decisions in this Court to which I have already referred demonstrate that there are a variety of situations in which the Court, on a proper balance of convenience, will restrain enforcement of a statute in aid of a plaintiff's constitutional right. In arriving at a balance of convenience the Court will take into account the seriousness of the conduct enjoined by the statute and the damage to the public interest that may be caused by restraining its enforcement. And in some cases the balance of convenience may be affected by the Court's perception or evaluation of the strength of the plaintiff's case for invalidity. But, subject to these qualifications there can be no reason to doubt the correctness of the general thrust of the comments in the passage which I have quoted. In the absence of compelling grounds,