injunction

Question 1

Injunctions can?

Answer 1

Prohibit the defendant from doing a particular thing OR can

compel the defendant to do something

Question 2

Prohibitory injunction

Answer 2

Restrains the defendant from doing something

Question 3

Mandatory injunction

Answer 3

Requires the defendant to do something

Question 4

Interim injunctions

Answer 4

Granted before the issue has

been determined by the court to prevent the defendant from infringing the claimant’s rights in the meantime.

Question 5

Final/perpetual injunctions

Answer 5

These are made as a final order once the substantive underlying action has been tried and determined.

Question 6

Quia timet injunction

Answer 6

‘because he fears’. Where there has been a threat to interfere with the claimant’s rights, but the defendant has taken no action yet.

Question 7

Ex parte injunctions

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

The court may refuse the injunction when?

Answer 8

Equitable maxims: court may refuse the injunction where C has not got ‘clean hands’. May also refuse on grounds of undue hardship to D

Question 9

Section 50 Senior Courts Act 1981

Answer 9

Court has discretion to grant

damages in lieu (instead) of an injunction.

Question 10

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Coventry v Lawrence (2014)

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

To get an injunction the claimant must usually ?

Answer 12

Prove the infringement or potential infringement of a legal or equitable rights.

Question 13

Day v Brownrigg (1878)

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

The court’s power to grant injunctive relief comes from

Answer 14

s 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981

Question 15

s 37(1) Senior Courts Act 1981

Answer 15

“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”

Question 16

Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris - mandatory injunction

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris - quia timet

Answer 17

C must demonstrate a strong probability of

infringement of a legal or equitable right.

Question 18

AG v Manchester Corporation (1893) - quia timet

Answer 18

Suggested that there must be a strong possibility of the feared harm actually occurring.

Question 19

R v Secy of State for Trade and Industry ex p Dudderidge (1994 - quia timet

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

American Cyanamid v Ethicon (1975) - interim injunction

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Lee v Haley

Answer 21

• C sought an injunction to protect their coal business, denied as C did not have clean hands

Question 22

The Freezing Order (formerly Mareva Injunction)

Answer 22

• Prevents the defendant from dealing with, disposing of or transferring out of the jurisdiction, any assets that he holds
• A form of prohibitory injunction

Question 23

Mareva v International Bulk carriers (1975) - freezing order

Answer 23

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

Question 24

Derby v Weldon - freezing order

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Freezing orders are usually?

Answer 25

Accompanied by a mandatory injunction for D to make full disclosure of all assets

Question 26

Freezing order can also ?

Answer 26

Be served on third parties e.g. banks, who may be

complicit in contempt of court if do not obey the order