Remedies (Equitable Remedies) Flashcards
What are the two main equitable remedies?
-Injunctions
-Specific performance
What are equitable remedies (in terms of judges applying)?
-Discretionary, bars to them eg delay
-He who comes with equity must come with clean hands
Define injunction
-Court order instructing someone not to breach a term of their contract
What are the 3 types of injunction?
Prohibitory (usually): instructing someone not to do something
Mandatory: court order requiring a party to do something
Temporary/permanent: temporary called an interim injunction, given while waiting for case to be heard or when damages not appropriate
What are the two case names for injunctions?
-AB v CD
-Page one records v Britton
AB v CD
-Interlocutory injunction granted to prevent a breach of contract re:intellectual property rights before trial. If case succeeded then court would not be able to award compensation as limitation clause in contract
Mandatory injunctions
-Rare
-Won’t be awarded for a party to complete a personal service because the court is unable to supervise such an order
Specific performance case
-Airport Industrial v Heathrow
-Judge concerned that making an order for specific performance would force company into liquidation so didn’t make order for specific performance of construction of car park
Page one records v Britton
-D’s (torts) had agreed POR would be agent for 5 years. Fell out and troggs wanted to appoint new manager
-POR tried to get court to grant an injunction to stop them
-Court refused to grant, would’ve meant them having no manager for 5 yrs or forcing them to work with a manager they’ve lost trust in
-court not able to supervise relationship
What is specific performance?
-A court order which compels someone to do something (as agreed in contract) eg hand over property
Like all equitable remedies specific performance orders are…
-Discretionary
When is specific performance often granted?
-Where damages are inadequate eg unique property, house (each house diff no matter how similar as diff piece of land and view) or antique
-Where damages would only be nominal
Case for damages are inadequate
-Cohen v Roche
-Specific performance order not granted to hand over the Hepplewhite chairs, rare but not unique
Case for damages would only be nominal
-Beswick v Beswick
-Aunt 3rd party to contract between uncle and nephew
-couldn’t bring claim to enforce payments
-still able to to bring claim as exec of uncles will but in this capacity uncle hadn’t lost anything so damages nominal
When would specific performance not be granted?
-Situations where it would cause hardship
-contracts for personal services or employment (Trade Union and Labour Relations act 1992)
-in contracts which require monitoring of ongoing obligation (court not able to supervise)
-in vague contracts or where only nominal consideration was provided
-where contract was obtained unfairly (not coming to equity with clean hands)
Case for causing hardship (already mentioned)
-Airport Industrial v Heathrow
-specific performance not granted as would force company into liquidation which would be unjust
Main case for causing hardship
-Patel v Ali
-Mr and Mrs Patel contracted to sell house to Ali. Delay in completion due to mr Patel bankruptcy, mrs P refused to complete due to serious illness (bone cancer, leg amputation and 2 more pregnancies)
-No SP order granted to transfer house to Mr A
-Would have causes Mrs P significant hardship
Act section for contracts for personal services or employment
-Trade Union and Labour relations act 1992
-S236, SP not granted for rocking employee to continue working for someone else. Could be unpleasant and unworkable if working relationship broken down
What is the exception to not granted in contracts for personal services or employment (TULRA 1992) - case
-Irani v Southampton
-Was granted bc Cs relationship with employer NHS had not broken down just his relationship w senior member of staff
Case for contracts requiring monitoring of an ongoing obligation (court unable to supervise)
-Coop insurance v Argyll stores
-Argyll (owner of safeways supermarket) leased building in shopping centre owned by insurance. By 1995 supermarket chain going badly, wanted to close. Coop asked for SP from court to force to stay open as vital to popularity of the centre
-HL refused to grant as wouldn’t be able to monitor it
Case for where contract obtained unfairly
-Not coming to equity with clean hands
-Walter’s v Morgan
-D purchased land, C wanted to mine it and pressurised hum to lease it to him for low price before D realised its value for inning. D refused to let C mine land
-Court would not grant SP order bc contract obtained unfairly (taking advantage of D’s mistake) unfair to enforce. C behaved inequitably
