Injunctions

Question 1

The House of Lords in Redland Bricks v. Morris [1970] AC 652 held that a mandatory order ought not to be granted if:

Answer 1

A) The obligation imposed on the respondent is insufficiently certain to enable the respondents to understand their obligations.
B) Damages are inadequate for the applicant and are adequate compensation for the respondent.
C) The cost of carrying out the order is wholly disproportionate to the benefit derived by the applicant.
D) The obligation can neither be complied with by the respondent nor policed effectively by the courts
Answer C) The cost of carrying out the order is wholly disproportionate to the benefit derived by the applicant.

Question 2

The aim of an interlocutory injunction is to:
A) Prevent the respondent from committing further wrong.
B) Anticipate the damage complained of and prevent its occurrence.
C) Maintain the status quo.
D) Prevent the respondent from defeating a judgement made against him/her.

Answer 2

C) Maintain the status quo.

Question 3

What must an applicant show if he/she is to be successful in obtaining a Quia Timet order?
A) A proven substantial risk of threatened loss.
B) A real and serious risk of danger.
C) An arguable case.
D) A strong and substantial risk of danger.

Answer 3

A

Question 4

Under a balance of convenience test, the court will attempt to protect the situation as it exists when?
A) Immediately after the writ has been issued.
B) Immediately after the application has been made.
C) Immediately after the application has been made if there was a delay between the issue of the writ and the act complained of.
D) None of the above.

Answer 4

A

Question 5

Save in the most exceptional of circumstances, in order to obtain an interlocutory injunction, an applicant must:
A) Issue and serve notice on the respondent.
B) Give an undertaking in damages.
C) Prove that damages may be an appropriate remedy for the applicant and an inappropriate remedy for the respondent.
D) None of the above..

Question 6

6:
In which of the following situations may the court employ the use of a balance of convenience test in determining whether to grant an interlocutory injunction:
A) Applicant seeks an order restraining the publication of an article that he claims to be highly defamatory.
B) Applicant seeks a perpetual order.
C) Applicant seeks an order restraining operations at an industrial factory that he claims pollute the local waterways.
D) Applicant seeks an order restraining the presentation of a winding up petition

Question 7

A principal reservation surrounding the granting of a mandatory injunction is that:
A) It’s akin to penal servitude.
B) Damages are generally sufficient in remedying a wrong.
C) The damage is already done.
D) None of the above.

Question 8

Re injunctions: - In general, if damages are an adequate remedy for the applicant, which of the following is NOT true:
A) The court will consider if damages are an adequate remedy for the respondent.
B) An injunction will be granted.
C) The court will assess the “Balance of Convenience”.
D) All of the above.

Question 9

An order for costs at an interlocutory stage will normally be made:
A) If damages are quantifiable and can be properly calculated.
B) The matter appears before the Commercial Court.
C) If damages are an inadequate remedy for both applicant and respondent.
D) Where there is no mandatory order being sought.

Question 10

In an ex parte application for injunctive relief which of the following of the following proofs is required (save in circumstances of the upmost urgency)?
A) An ex parte docket setting out the relief being sought.
B) A draft notice of motion.
C) An affidavit providing full disclosure of all the circumstances of the case.
D) All of the above.

Question 11

In an ex parte application for injunctive relief an applicant must undertake to serve the notice of motion setting out, inter alia, the return date fixed. How much notice is required?
A) 4 clear days where proceedings have been issued.
B) 2 clear days where the summons has already been issued and an appearance entered.
C) 6 clear days where the summons has not been issued and an appearance entered.
D) 2 clear days where no proceedings

Question 12

What is the leading Irish authority on the issue of Bayer orders?
A) Microsoft Corporation v. Brightpoint Ireland [2001] 1 ILRM 540
B) O’Mahony v. Horgan [1995] 2 IR 411
C) Bayer AG v. Winter [1986] 1 WLR 497
D) O’Neill v. O’Keefe [2002] IR 1

Question 13

What legal principle has served to undermine and thwart the application and use of Anton Pillar orders in this jurisdiction?
A) The privilege against self-incrimination.
B) Inviolability of the dwelling place.
C) The right to due process under Art 38.1
D) Principles of free trade.

Question 14

Which of the following orders can be best described as ancillary in nature?
A) Quia Timet.
B) Bayer.
C) Mareva.
D) Anton Pillar.

Question 15

In which of the following situations would the applicant be most likely to obtain injunctive relief?
A) A is seeking a Bayer Order restraining R from leaving the jurisdiction. R has already refused to comply with an Anton Pillar order for which he’s facing a charge of contempt. The date set for the contempt hearing is one month from now. R is about to fly to Rio De Janeiro to attend his daughter’s wedding and is expected back sometime within the next two weeks.
B) A is seeking a Mareva injunction restraining R from withdrawing money from his current account. Accepting that R may indeed have day-to-day expenses, A is willing to concede that the entire account cannot be frozen. Furthermore, given that R has extremely limited access to his savings account, A does not seek a similar freeze on it and therefore does not disclose the account’s existence to the court.
C) A is seeking an Anton Pillar order in an effort to prevent R from destroying confidential industry documents. The documents in question pertain to a discovery made by A’s scientists regarding the distilling process of alcohol. It is hoped that with this information, A’s company will revolutionise the production process of alcohol and thus gain a substantial lead in the market. R, it was revealed, was masquerading as a janitor and is recorded on CCTV leaving A’s premises with the documents stuffed in his bag. A insists on bringing his own solicitor, as opposed to an independent third party solicitor to oversee the execution of the order.
D) A is seeking…..a feck it, it’s not D)

Question 16

Which of the following pre-conditions must generally be satisfied before an Anton Pillar order will be granted: (i) applicant has an arguable prima facie case; (ii) applicant has an extremely strong prima facie case; (iii) there’s clear evidence that the respondent has the documents in question and intends to retain them; (iv) there is a real possibility that the respondent will destroy them once he/she has finished with the documents.
A) (i)
B) (ii)
C) (ii) & (iii) & (iv)
D) (ii) & (iv)

Question 17

All interlocutory applications are brought:
A) On the basis of oral evidence if it is an inter partes application.
B) Before any proceedings have been initiated.
C) By way of motion grounded on affidavit if it is an ex parte application.
D) By way of motion grounded on affidavit.

Question 18

A Mareva injunction was ordered freezing the assets of John. John has two bank accounts. One is in Dublin and the other is in Oslo. Both banks were given notice of the order. John has been warned by the court that he will be in contempt if he removes these assets. John goes to the Dublin branch to speak with the branch manager Paul (who is John’s best friend) to authorise the withdrawal of a couple of hundred euro so that John can meet his “legitimate day-to-day expenses”. Paul consents. John then flies to Norway and has the same conversation with his bank manager Ola (John’s brother-in-law). This time however, John sought to withdraw all funds (9,000 Euro) and close the account, which Ola consented to. John then hops on a plane to Rio. Contempt charges have been issued. But against whom?
A) John on two counts and Paul on one count
B) John on one count and Ola on one count
C) John on two counts.
D) John on two counts, Paul on one count and Ola on one count

Question 19

In which of these situations would a court most likely award a Mareva Injunction?
(A) Applicant has been unable to show that there is a “fair and serious question to be tried” but has established a “good arguable case”.
(B) Applicant has been unable to give full and frank disclosure of all matters in his knowledge which the judge ought to know.
(C) Applicant has given no undertakings in damages.
(D) Applicant has not been able to identify the assets nor has he provided any grounds for believe that they will be removed or dissipated.

Question 20

A mandatory order was refused by the courts in Bula Ltd v. Tara Mines Ltd (No.2) [1987] IR 95 because:
A) The obligation imposed on the respondents was insufficiently certain to enable the respondents to understand their obligations and to enable the court to determine whether or not they were complying.
B) Damages were inadequate for the applicants and were adequate compensation for the respondents.
C) The cost of carrying out the order was wholly disproportionate to the benefit derived by the applicant.
D) All of the above.