Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Perpetual Injunctions (Quia Timet Injunctions
BECAUSE HE FEARS (An…
Perpetual Injunctions
-
TEST
Attorney General v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital
Facts: P sought an injunction to restrain D from building smallpox hispotal
Held: Relief refused on basis no real danger proved
Test: proof of actual and real danger- a strong probability, almost amunting to a moral certainty, that if the Hosptial be estab, it will be an actionable nuisance
Attorney General v Manchester Corporation:
- P must show a strong case of probability that the apprehended mischief will arise
-
TEST
-
Independent Newspapers v Irish Press:
Facts: Passing off claim
Held; THat court would not grant a quia timet injunciton 'unless it is satisfied there is a reasonable probability that what is threatened to be done is calculated in the ordinary course of events, or according to the ordinary course of business to cause damage to the P
Szabo v Esat
FACTS: P seeking an injunction restraining D from erecting a mobile telephone base station in the grounds of a garda station adjacent to their school
- Geoghhegan J thought the test expounded in *AG v Manchester Corporation probably went too far that would have P prove a 'substantial risk of danger
- DID NOT FIND THAT SUCH DANGER EXISTED IN THIS CASE- a danger to children prior to hearing of the action
GEOGHERGAN J SAW NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON INTERLICUTORY QUIA TIMEY INJUNCTIONS AND ANY OTHER INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION BUT SIMPLY MORE DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH AS A MATTER OF EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT RISK OF FUTURE INJURY.
-
-
Perpetual Injunctions
- May last forever
- P must prove that one of his rights is being or will be violated by D
-
Boliden Tara Mnes ltd v Cosgrove and Ors:
Hardiman SC: 'in Ireland no form of words other than PROOF ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY should be used and the multiplication of phrases may cause confusion.