Injunctions General Principles

TOPIC 6 INJUNCTIONS GENERAL PRINCIPLES
What are they?

It is an order of the court, granted either at trial or before.
Order to do or not do something, restraining the performance or continuance of a wrongful
act or has the effect of requiring the performance of an act.
Purpose?
Make the plaintiff whole
Classification of injunctions
Core categories
1. Mandatory injunction (positive)
Court ordering the performance of a particular act
2. Prohibitory injunction (negative)
Restrains the performance or continuance of a specified act
3. Quia Timet
Prevents the risk of damage occurring. Applicant must prove ‘substantial risk of danger’
Duration categories
1. Perpetual injunction
Indefinite duration or will exist until any dispute has been settled
2. Interim injunction
granted pre-trial in the absence of the respondent.
3. Interlocutory injunction
Granted prior to the trial of the action or until a further order is made.
Preserves the status quo until trial.
Criteria to grant injunctions
Only granted to protect the rights of the plaintiff
Not be granted to a mere inconvenience or where the interference is trivial (little worth)
a. Adequacy of damages as a remedy

To obtain an injunction, plaintiff must show that he would not be adequately compensated by
an award of damages.
Curust Financial Services v Loewe Lack

Background
Defendant was a paint manufacturer and plaintiff sold paint in England and Ireland.
D rejected contract but had allegedly breach contract
Issue
Did this breach disentitle P to relief and were damages an adequate remedy?
Held
P’s actions barred them from obtaining an injunction
Injunctions should only be granted where it is impossible to assess damages.
b. Conduct of the parties

‘He who comes to equity must come with clean hands’ and ‘he who seeks equity must do
equity’
Curust Financial Services v Loewe Lack
Conduct should be more than just a breach of contract, must be an element of moral
turpitude.
c. Latches and Acquiescence
Injunctions may be refused by the court on grounds of laches or acquiescence
Relate to the maxim ‘delay defeats equity’
For laches to apply:
1. Unreasonable delay by the plaintiff to commencement of proceedings
2. Nature of delay must be unjust to grant the relief sought
Howard v Commissions of Public Works in Ireland

Applicants had delayed unduly in seeking the relief while respondents behaved in an
irreproachable manner.
d. Effect on third parties

Should the rights of third parties be taken into account?
Bellew v Cement – lead case

Background
Bellew sought an interlocutory injunction (Granted prior to the trial of the action or until a
further order is made.) to restrain the defendants from carrying out blasting in a neighbouring
quarry. Cement were the sole manufacters in the country at the time, but blasting was
considered a nuisance by Bellew.
Cement argued that it was of central importance to the Irish building society and the
injunction would cause them to cease production for a large amount of time.
Held
General public convenience should not be considered when weighing up whether or not to
grant injunctions as it was the matter between private parties
There is a greater tendency for Irish courts to look beyond party rights when granting an
injunction.
Howard v Commissions of Public Works in Ireland

Background
Interlocutory injunction was sought by plaintiff to restrain defendant from starting building
works.
Held
Ultimately, O’Hanlon was influenced by the wider public convenience, primarily job
prospects.
Injunction declined.
The test for granting of interlocutory injunctions
Essential purpose of the interlocutory injunction is to preserve the status quo until the trial of
the issues.
Interlocutory injunctions have its own problems as the court is being requested to grant an
injunction prior to any examination of the legal and factual issues in question.
Old test
Plaintiff had to show that they were more likely to succeed at trial – ‘prima facie case’
This was criticised as it was inconsistent with the logic of interlocutory injunction
Made no sense to use the court’s time to predict the outcome of a case that is yet to be heard.
New test
‘balance of convenience test’
American cyanamid v Ethicon
Background
Cyanmid introduced a product for surgical stitches in the UK and captured 15% of the market
by 1973.
Ethicon sought and obtained injunction restraining Cyanmid from marketing their products in
allged breach of Ethicon’s patent.
Held
The grant of interlocutory injunctions must weigh one need against another to determine
where the balance of convenience lies.
Court should consider whether there is a serious question to be tried (not frivolous)
If yes, proceed to assess the balance of convenience
When the courts would go on to consider tha balance of convenience, it involved an

assessment of the implications of an injunction on both plaintiff and defendant.
In doing this, the court will assess the adequacy of damages being awarded at the eventual
trial.
If the interlocutory injunction isdenied, but plaintiff succeeds at trial, can plaintiff be
compensated by any loss sustained? If yes, the court will deny an interlocutory injunction
If the interlocutory injunction is granted but Defendant succeeds at trial, could they be
compensated? If so, the court will grant the injunction.
When the adequacy of damages is evenly balanced?

If it appears that damages will not be an adequate remedy for both = court will consider other
factors
Relevant factors vary but may including taking measures to preserve the status quo
In cases where the balance of convenience may be finely balanced, courts may look at
the relative merits of each party’s case.
Campus Oil Ltd v Minister of Industry and Energy
approved American Cyanamid
Background
Minister enacted a statutory instrument requiring Campus oil to buy 35% of its petrol product
from a state-owned refinery.
Campus oil challenged the validity of this on the claim that mandatory regime violated the
Treaty established in the European Economic Community.
Preliminary ruling would be made
Minister sought interlocutory injunctions against Campus Oil who refused to comply with the
order.
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction was granted
Probability of success at trial was not the proper test for determining whether to grant an
interlocutory injunction
Applicant must establish that there is a fair question to be tried and that the balance of
convenience lies on the side of granting the injunction.
Courts will ask:

1. Is there a serious question to be tried?
2. Would damages adequately compensate the defendant if he was restrained under the
injunction pending trial
3. If not, does a balance of convenience favour an injunction?
The granting of the injunction must actually help preserve the status quo.

Injunctions General Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Injunctions General Principles

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Injunctions General Principles

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC 6 INJUNCTIONS GENERAL PRINCIPLES

What are they?

a. Adequacy of damages as a remedy

Curust Financial Services v Loewe Lack

b. Conduct of the parties

Howard v Commissions of Public Works in Ireland

d. Effect on third parties

Bellew v Cement – lead case

Howard v Commissions of Public Works in Ireland

When the courts would go on to consider tha balance of convenience, it involved an

When the adequacy of damages is evenly balanced?

Courts will ask:

You might also like