The plaintiff railway company sought to continue an interim injunction restraining aboriginal protesters from blockading its spur line.
The blockade was causing irreparable economic harm to the plaintiff and its customers.
The local police had refused to enforce the initial injunction, citing a desire to negotiate a peaceful resolution and maintain goodwill with the aboriginal community.
The court found that the protesters were trespassing and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.
The court continued the injunction, removing a clause that explicitly recognized police tactical discretion, but declined to schedule contempt proceedings due to the police's unwillingness to enforce the court's orders.