injunction Flashcards
Injunctions can?
Prohibit the defendant from doing a particular thing OR can
compel the defendant to do something
Prohibitory injunction
Restrains the defendant from doing something
Mandatory injunction
Requires the defendant to do something
Interim injunctions
Granted before the issue has
been determined by the court to prevent the defendant from infringing the claimant’s rights in the meantime.
Final/perpetual injunctions
These are made as a final order once the substantive underlying action has been tried and determined.
Quia timet injunction
‘because he fears’. Where there has been a threat to interfere with the claimant’s rights, but the defendant has taken no action yet.
Ex parte injunctions
Used where it is feared that the defendant will infringe claimants right if he hears of the application The defendant discovers the existence of the injunction when it is served on him.
The court may refuse the injunction when?
Equitable maxims: court may refuse the injunction where C has not got ‘clean hands’. May also refuse on grounds of undue hardship to D
Section 50 Senior Courts Act 1981
Court has discretion to grant
damages in lieu (instead) of an injunction.
Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting
Damages in lieu of an injunction
should be granted only if (1) the injury to C’s legal rights is small (2) is capable of being estimated in money (3) can be compensated by a small monetary payment and (4) it would be oppressive to D to grant an injunction
Coventry v Lawrence (2014)
Lord Neuberger said that once the claimant has established a prima facie right to the granting of an injunction, the burden shifts to the defendant to show why damages in lieu should be awarded.
To get an injunction the claimant must usually ?
Prove the infringement or potential infringement of a legal or equitable rights.
Day v Brownrigg (1878)
claimant lived in a house called Ashford Lodge. His neighbour, the defendant, decided to call his house Ashford Lodge too.
C sought an injunction. Refused because he had no common law or equitable right against his neighbour.
The court’s power to grant injunctive relief comes from
s 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981
s 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981
“The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”
Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris - mandatory injunction
- Claimant must show strong probability of grave damage accruing if the injunction is not granted.
- granting can potentially interfere with defendant’s liberty
- cost to the D of taking action must be taken into account by the court
- D needs to know precisely what he or she is expected to do or avoid
Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris - quia timet
C must demonstrate a strong probability of
infringement of a legal or equitable right.
AG v Manchester Corporation (1893) - quia timet
Suggested that there must be a strong possibility of the feared harm actually occurring.
R v Secy of State for Trade and Industry ex p Dudderidge (1994 - quia timet
C sought an injunction to restrain the installation of electricity pylons. Held that the
danger of cancer from the proximity of electricity pylons had not been proven and therefore a quia timet injunction would not be granted.
American Cyanamid v Ethicon (1975) - interim injunction
Court established the principles to grant an interim injunction
- a serious question to be tried
- the adequacy of damages
- the balance of convenience
- special factors to consider
Lee v Haley
- C sought an injunction to protect their coal business, denied as C did not have clean hands
The Freezing Order (formerly Mareva Injunction)
- Prevents the defendant from dealing with, disposing of or transferring out of the jurisdiction, any assets that he holds
- A form of prohibitory injunction
Mareva v International Bulk carriers (1975) - freezing order
an effective use of the order will freeze the assets of the defendant up to the value of the claim and will prevent a defendant from removing their assets from the court’s jurisdiction before trial
Derby v Weldon - freezing order
Must be a good and solid case for such an order to be granted and it was also said how in order for a freezing order to be utilised it must be shown that there is:
- Good arguable case
- Real risk that judgment will go unsatisfied: without the order assets will be removed
- It is just and convenient in all the circumstances
Freezing orders are usually?
Accompanied by a mandatory injunction for D to make full disclosure of all assets
Freezing order can also ?
Be served on third parties e.g. banks, who may be
complicit in contempt of court if do not obey the order
