Interim Injuctions

Question 1

CPR 25

Answer 1

Sets out interim remedies that are available to courts

Question 2

What is a quia timet injunction?

Answer 2

an injunction designed to prevent apprehended harm where none has been suffered at the time of the application

Question 3

Full and frank disclosure without notice applications.

Answer 3

Must draw specific attention of judge to all material information.

Question 4

Where does the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant injunctions come from?

Answer 4

s37 Senior Courts Act 1981.

Question 5

Where does the jurisdiction of the County Court to grant injunctions come from?

Answer 5

s. 38 County Courts Act 1984.

Question 6

Morris –v- Murjani [1996] 2 All ER 384

Answer 6

Morris was a trustee in bankruptcy, Murjani was a bankrupt. Morris heard that Murjani was going to attempt to leave the country. Argued that no pre-existing cause of action as required by the Siskina. Distinguished from the siskina.

Question 7

The Siskina [1979] AC 210

Answer 7

Interim injunction can only be granted where it is ancillary or incidental to a pre-existing cause of action against a party, arising out of the invasion, actual or threatened, of a legal or equitable right of the Plaintiff

Question 8

Do the High Court and the County Court have the same powers in granting interim injunctions?

Answer 8

County Court Remedies Regulations 2014

The County Court has the power to grant any interim injunction which could be granted by the High Court save that it cannot grant search orders

Question 9

When can an application be made for an interim remedy?

Answer 9

CPR r25.2(1) and r25.1(4) The general rule is that an application for an interim remedy can be made at any time (including before proceedings are started and after judgment has been given) and whether or not there has been a claim for a final remedy of the same kind

Question 10

What are the exceptions to the general rule about the time for applying for an interim remedy?

Answer 10

i) the court may grant an interim remedy before proceedings are started only if the matter is urgent or it is otherwise desirable to do so in the interests of justice
ii) unless the court orders otherwise, a defendant may not apply for an interim remedy before he has filed an acknowledgment of service or defence
iii) since one of the aims of the overriding objective is to ensure that cases are dealt with expeditiously, the general rule is that every application should be made as soon as it becomes apparent that it is necessary or desirable to make it. Wherever possible applications should also be made so that they can be considered at any other hearing for which a date has been fixed or for which a date is about to be fixed: see PD 23A para’s 2.7 and 2.8.

Question 11

When does full and frank disclosure apply?

Answer 11

Applications made without notice

Question 12

American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] AC 396,

Answer 12

lays down the criteria to be applied in considering whether to grant the injunction. Those are:-

Whether there is a serious question to be tried.

Whether the applicant would be adequately compensated in damages.

Whether, conversely, if the respondent were to succeed at trial he would be adequately compensated by the applicant’s undertaking in damages.

If all factors appear evenly balanced the court should strive to preserve the status quo ante

The court is entitled to look at “special factors”

Question 13

American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] AC 396, What is a serious question to be tried?

Answer 13

This simply means a claim which is more than frivolous or vexatious.

Oral evidence is not, therefore, normally admitted on an application for an interim injunction: see CPR r. 32.2(1)(b).

Question 13

American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] AC 396

Whether the applicant would be adequately compensated in damages.

Answer 13

Should the court answer the question in the affirmative the injunction should not normally be granted.
Note that damages will be inadequate if the respondent is unable to pay such damages, or the wrong is irreparable etc.

Would the applicant be adequately compensated in damages? If yes then injunction shouldn’t be granted

Question 14

What are the exceptions to the principles found in American Cyanamid?

Answer 14

I) Where the grant of an interim injunction would finally dispose of the action: the court will look at the merits of each party’s case: see, for example, Cambridge Nutrition Ltd. -v- BBC [1990] 3 All ER 523.

ii) Where there is no defence to the substantive action: an injunction lies as of right: see, for example, Patel -v- WH Smith (Eziot) Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 853.

iii) Where the claim is for a mandatory injunction: this generally requires a high probability that the substantive claim will succeed.

Question 14

American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd. [1975] AC 396 Preserving the status quo ante

Answer 14

Strive to preserve the state of affairs which existed immediately before the issue of proceedings (ignoring minimal periods of delay).

The court is entitled to look at “special factors” i.e. those relevant to the circumstances of the particular case e.g. whether the grant of an injunction would cause the closure of a factory.

As a last resort the court can consider the relative merits of each party’s case