Quia Timet Injunctions Flashcards
Keane (commentary)
while jurisdiction to grant injunction in respect of threatened or apprehended wrongs is undoubted and of long standing, it is one the courts have exercised with caution.
AG v Manchester Corporation
must show ‘a strong case of probability that the apprehended mischief will in fact arise.’
AG (Boswell) v Rathmines
Residents sought to restrain construction of quarantine hospital on the basis of the risk of infection. No risk on the evidence. QT refused.
‘law requires proof of actual and real danger – a strong probability, almost amounting to a moral certainty.’
Independent Newspaper v Irish Press
Less of a standard: court will not grant QT unless there ‘is a reasonable probability that what is threatened to be done is calculated in the ordinary course of events… to cause damage to the plaintiff.’
Hooper v Rogers
probability of future injury is not an absolute standard
C&A Modes v C&A
High threshold deomstrated in: P’s were shopping food chain, sought to restrain firm in Waterford describing themselves as C&A Modes Waterford – held P established strong case of threatened loss to justify QT being graned.
Szazbo
application by school children claiming erection of mobile telephone base near school would emit radio frequency radiation likely to be harmful to their health.
Geoghegan J – AG v Manchester test was too high – Geoghegan adopted the test set out in Spry Equitable Remedies who suggested there was no difference between the legal principles to be applied in QT interlocutory injunctions and other interlocutory injunctions.
No breach of rights had taken place at date of hearing is relevant – may b more difficult to establish a sufficient risk of injury to justify injunction
In such circumstances – courts must balance the magnitude of evil against the chance of its occurrence
o He adopted Boswell test – must be proven substantial risk of danger arising in the limited period pending the hearing of the action. Therefore court may have to have regard to expert witnesses and background information.
Applying to the case – Expert witness – radio frequency 50 years with no health consequences – thus ‘highly improbable’ any injury would arise.
Therefore neither just nor reasonable to grant – disastrous repercussions for D
Ryanair v Aer Rianta
Kelly J – noted that normal interlocutory principles apply for QT –
held where rights have not been breached, court must balance magnitude of evil against the changes of occurrence and must require ‘a proven substantial risk of danger.’
National Irish Bank v RTE
D had conceded he intended to publish confidential information about the plaintiff – Court held more appropriate test was Campus rather than Boswell - thus cases where parties interests seeking to be protected are commercial in nature – Campus will apply.
