7. Equitable Remedies Flashcards
Adderley v Dixon
Specific performance will only be granted where award of damages would not be an adequate remedy
Falke v Gray
Ming vase is sufficiently unique
Cohen v Roche
Reasonably rare chairs not sufficiently unique
Behnke v Bede
SP may be awarded where object is of peculiar value to C
Sky Petroleum v VIP
SP more likely where there is limited supply
Verrall v Great Yarmouth
SP will be awarded only if services are ‘irreplaceable’
Ryan v Mutual Tontine
Services must be clearly defined if SP is to be awarded
Co-operative v Argyll
SP will not be awarded if enforcing contract would require constant supervision by courts
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s 236
SP will not be awarded against an employee
De Francesco v Barnum
If contract is akin to slavery, SP will not be possible
Giles v Morris
Where D could simply perform service badly, SP will not be awarded
Lumley v Ravenscroft
Mutuality
Coatsworth v Johnson
Clean hands
Limitation Act 1980, s 36(1)
No statutory limitation period for bringing an action for specific performance
Eads v Williams
Unreasonable delay will defeat a claim for the remedy
Patel v Ali
Hardship
Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service
Injunction will only be granted to protect recognisable legal or equitable
American Cyanamid
(1) Not frivolous or vexatious
(2) Balance of convenience
• (a) Adequacy of damages – if IPI not awarded, damages sufficient; if so, could C afford to pay + vice versa
• (b) Other factors, e.g. loss of employment (Fellows and Sons v Fisher) and damage to goodwill of business (Associated Newspapers v Insert Media), preserving substantial investment (Catnic v Stressline)
(3) Where not conclusive, status quo ante
Garden Cottage v Milk Marketing
Status quo will generally favour granting injunction
Shepherd Homes v Sandham
Court must feel ‘a high degree of assurance that at the trial it will appear that the injunction was rightly granted’
Evans v BBC
Interim mandatory injunction was granted to compel Ds to screen a party political broadcast for similar reasons
Capita v Chatham
Interim mandatory injunction was granted to compel D to sublet unit to magnet tenant
Anton Piller v Manufacturing
Search orders (1) An extremely strong prima facie case (much higher standard than for ordinary mandatory interim injunctions)
(2) Very serious damage, potential or actual to C
(3) Clear evidence that D has incriminating docs and there is real possibility he may destroy them
Here court made order requiring Ds to permit Ps to enter premises to inspect docs relating to confidential information concerning P’s electrical equipment, which P feared D would pass to competitor
Lock v Beswick
More likely search order will be granted against ‘fly-by-night video pirates’ than family man grounded in one place
