Equitable Remedies Flashcards
Day v Brownrigg
Remedy is not a cause of action but is sought in support of a recognisable legal or equitable right of action
Robinson v Harman
At common law, damages is the ‘remedy of right’
Adderley v Dixon
Equity will not award specific performance if damages are sufficient
Will decree specific performance in respect of land as it is unique
Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC
Specific performance granted as service (supply of pavilion) was irreplaceable and damages inadequate (could not hold convention)
Pusey v Pusey
Completely unique item (King Kanut’s horn) was subject to specific performance
Falcke v Gray
Rare Ming vases were subject of specific performance - could not be found on the general market
Cohen v Roche
Rare antique chairs were not subject of specific performance because they were ordinary items of commerce with no personal value
Behnke v Bede Shipping Co
Specific performance may be granted over a mundane item that has peculiar and practically unique value to the claimant
Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum
Specific performance granted for petrol during oil crisis due to lack of alternative providers
Ryan v Mutual Tontine Westminster Chambers Association
Courts will not award specific performance if it would require constant supervision
Posner v Scott-Lewis
Courts will award specific performance if it is easy to define how it may be satisfied
Cooperative Insurance v Argyll Stores
Courts will not award specific performance if it would result in constant stream of litigation
De Franscesco v Barnum
Courts will not enforce contracts tantamount to slavery - against public policy
Courts will not enforce a contract which could not enforced the other way - no mutuality of obligations
Giles v Morris
Courts will not award specific performance if it would lead to imperfections in performance - no specific performance for subjective artistic services
Wrotham Park Estate v Parkside Homes
Mandatory injunction to demolish houses built in breach of covenant was refused and damages awared in lieu
American Cyanamid v Ethicon
Interim prohibitory injunction requirements:
1) Case must not be frivolous/vexations - serious question to be tried
2) Balance of convenience must be assessed
3) Status quo ante if courts cannot decide
4) May consider merits of the case as last resort - only if one case is disproportionate to the other
Morning Star v Express Newspapers
Vexatious claim to try and prevent rival newspaper from trading under a similar name where ‘only a moron in a hurry would confuse them’
Fellows and Son v Fisher
Interim prohibitory injunction may be denied if it will cause loss of employment
Associated Newspapers v Insert Media
Courts will consider damage to the good will of a business in deciding whether to award an IPI
Potters-Ballotini v Weston-Baker
Courts may deny an IPI if it will cause a business to close down
Catnic Components v Stressline
Courts may refuse an IPI if it will preserve a substantial investment
Garden Cottage Foods v Milk Marketing Board
Status quo ante will tend to favour the claimant as the last change is usually the commencement of the alleged wrong
Shepherd Homes v Sandham
If the claimant has delayed, the status quo ante may be the alleged wrong and would favour the defendant
Would also indicate the matter is not urgent and can wait until trial
Interim mandatory requirement: must be a high degree of assurance that at trial it will appear the injunction was rightly granted
Stronger case needed than for an IPI
Evans v BBC and IBA
IMI granted to compel defendants to screen party political broadcast - clear that damages would have been inadequate and too time sensitive for specific performance
Eads v Williams
No statutory limitation period for bringing an action for specific performance, but delay will defeat an equitable remedy
HP Bulmer v Bollinger
Inordinate delay might defeat claim for injunctive relief
Claimant must not acquiesce (must show that the other party has relied on that acquiescence to their detriment)
Shaw v Applegate
For acquiescence to deprive a person of their legal rights it must be such that it is dishonest or unconscionable to enforce their legal rights
Coatsworth v Johnson
Must have clean hands to seek an equitable remedy - claimant must have performed or be willing to perform all their own obligations
Measures v Measures
He who seeks equity must do equity
Patel v Ali
Undue hardship to defendant or third party may defeat equitable remedy
