G and T Crampton v Building and Allied Trades Union
Facts: P sought interlocutory injunction to restrain picketing

• HC considered that the secret bllot that had been held did not comply with the relevnt rules
  HELD: s19 did not appl
• applying Campus Oil: HC granted an interlocutory injunction
  SC: affirmed there was a fair qu to be tried, damages were inadequate and on the balance of convenience the injunction should be granted

Malincross v Building and Allied Trades Union
Facts: D trade union and workers were pricketing a site at which their employer used to work

• It no longer did so (sub contract terminated due to delays from industrial action)
• Site taken over by P (main contractor)
  HELD: HC: in deciding whether or not to apply test in s19(2) the court should ask : was there a bona fide dispute as to whehter or not the preconditions for s19(2) application had been fulfilled
• there was a dispute- the secret ballot authorised the industrial action in respect of original employer only
• CAMPUS OIL principles applies
• Injunction granted

Daru Buildings v Building and allied Trades Union
HC: if a trade union is to avial of the benefit of s19 the secret ballot must be conducted properly

• This meant that the entitlement to vote in the secret ballot must be accorded equally to all members whom it was reasonable at the time of the ballot for the union concerned to believe would be called upon to engage in the industrial action
• ONUS on D to show compliance
• Mere assertion s19 complied with on affidavit insufficient

Reynalds v Malocco
Facts: P sought to restrain a publication

• He alleged i defamed him: Statements he permitted sale of drugs in his nightclub and that he was gay
  HELD: HC in order to obtain on interlocutory injunction: P must show
• not only that he has raised A SERIOUS ISSUE re the words complained of
• but also that there was no doubt that the words are defamatory

INJUNCTION WONT BE GRANTED AS A MATTER OF COURSE- HAVE TO BE EVIDENCE OF PROSPECT OF SUCCESS
Qiom;ovam v O'Dea
There must be no doubt that the words complained of were defamatory

• Whilst recognizing the importance of free speech, HC warned that a bald statement by D he intends to plead justification, as in this case, would not be sufficient
• there must be some evidence to suggest that the plea has some prospect of success
  HELD: HC satisfied the publication was defamatory
• as there was no evidence to support plea of justification, P was prima facie entitled to an interlocutory injunction
• P unlikely to recover damages from D were he to succeed at his trial for defamation

Cogley v RTE:
Facts: application for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the broadcast of RTE Prime Time programme on Leas Cross nursing home

• P was assistant director of the nursing home and argued progrmmed defamed her
  HELD HC: TEST: WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY REASONABLE BASIS ON WHICH D MIGHT SUCCEED AT TRIAL
• Endorsed Reynolds v Malocco: a bald statement by a D that he intends to plead justification is not sufficient
• There must be evidence to suggest the plea has some prospect of success
• Even if P satisfies 'reasonable basis test' the court still retains DISCRETION TO REFUSE
  Held: P failed to demonstrate there was no reasonable basis on which D migh succeed
• Injunction refused
  

'Convincing Case test'

• P Much show convincing case to rbing about the curtailment of FOE of press
• Advocated in: Murray v Newsgroup Newspapers
• O'Brien v RTE

Campus oil will not be applied where a co seeks an interlocutory injunction to restrain its creditors from presenting a petition to wind up the co

• The Grant of same would restrict the creditors constitutional right of access to courts

Truck and Machinerery Sales v Marubeni Komatsu:
TEST: P must prove that the petition is bound to fail or there is suitable alternative remedy

Cotton Box Design Group Earls Construction Ltd: Laffoy J granted injunctions restraining petitions to wind up as she was satisfied P cos were acting bona fide in disputing the debts and there was a prospect of serious injustice if petition proceeded :

If it is unlikley that the issues between the parties will ultimately be resolved at trial, this would men that the court's decision on an application for an interlocutory injunction would resolve the dispute in favor of the successful party

The court may consider the likelihood of P succeeding at trial, which would involve a consideration of of the merits of the parties cases
Cayne v Global Resources:
Facts: Ps were shareholds in teh D co
Issue: Sought injunction to restrain it from allotting new shares prior to its AGM

• Grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction would determine the outcome of a crucial vote at the AGM
  HELD: in these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to apply American Cyanmide principles
• those were enunciated on the assumption that the issues between the parties would ultimately be resolved at trial
  TEST: Court would consider the risk of doing an injustive
• Held: Here justice dictated that the D be allowed to dispute Ps claim at trial
• Interlocutory injunction not granted

Lansing Linde Ltd v Kerr: Parties had agreed the D would not work for any of P's competitors for 12 months after cessation of his employment with P

• D gave 6 months notice of cessation of employment with P
• One month later, accepted position with one of P's competitors
  Issue: P sought an injunction to enforce the restraint-of-trade clause
  Held: C of A refused to grant interlocutory relief
  ; It will not be possible to hold a trial before the period for which the P claims to be entitled to an injunction as expired, or substantially expired
• Justice requires some consideration whether the P would be likely to succeed at a trial
  

1. It is not enough to decide merely there is a serious issue to be tried (CAMPUS OIL)
2. The assertion of scuh an issue should not operate as a lettre de cachet, by which the D is prevented from doing that whihc, as it later turns out, he has a perfect right to do
3. On a wider view of the balance of probabilities, it may stull be right to impose such a restraint, but not unless there has been some assessment of the P's prspects of success

• some assessment- courts constantly seek to discourage prolonged interlocutory battles of affidavit evidence
• For court to determine extent of assessment of prospect of success required
  
  

Dp not see that delay caused by congestion in court's list should be left out of account

• this is a practical reality s much as anything else
• theovery reason for granting interlocutory relief is that a trial cannot take place immediately
• Delay for parties' preparations necessary
• but also delay before court can arrange a trial

Jacob v Irish Amateur Rowing Union Laffoy J felt the appropriate test was to balance the risk of doing injustive when deciding whether injunction should be granted

In above and:
Rogers v An Post; the injunctions were refused because in each case it would determine the issue finally between the parties in a summary manner and deprive the D of having his rights determined fully in a full trial hearing

Symonds Cider and English Wine co v Showerings:
An injunction was sought in context of TM dispute
D argud that in such disputes the interlocutory injunction application was often determinative and courts should consider merits of parties cases

• HC: REJECTED
• applied campus oil principles

Okunade v MJELR
Facts: application for an interlocutory injunction seeking to restrain deportation pending hearing of JR proceedings
TEST: Clarke J set out applicable principles

1. an arguable case must be established by the applicant
2. If so, where does the greatest risk of injustice lie- looking at the public interest issues in implementing schemes
3. Are damages adequate
4. Regard can be had to the relative strength of the applicants case

• These principles have been consistenly applied in JR Proceeings