sigh!, page-3

Hi Vorheta

I agree with you to some extent, but respectfully disagree with you on one important aspect.

With injunction applications, a Court will generally make a decision very quickly in light of the potential for serious prejudice to the enjoined party. On an injunction application, at least in NSW, a Court will weigh up the the balance of convenience in granting the application. Relevant matters on this issue will depend on the nature of the case , but may include such considerations as whether irreparable harm will be suffered by the plaintiff if the relief is not granted; whether damages will be a sufficient remedy and whether the defendant will be in a position to pay such damages if ordered; and the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages.

I, for one, was very surprised the Malaysian Courts granted an injunction, as it seems to me the prejudice to Lynas vastly outweighs the risks to the defendants especially in light of the numerous studies etc re the safety of the plant. Nonetheless, if the plaintiffs were able to convince the Court, on a prima facie basis, of serious risks of harm to health, it is undertandable why a Court may have granted the injunction. The key words here are "on a prima facie basis". It's not a case of the Court finding it unsafe, all it would need to find was that there was sufficient material to conclude there might be dangers. If the plaintiffs could, on a prima facie basis, show (as I am sure they would have tried to) that the dangers to health could be catastrophic compared to a mere delay of one month for Lynas, it is somewhat more understandable why the Court may have rules the way it did.

Not that I like it...