Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Interlocutory Injunctions (Introduction (Campus Oil v Minister of Industry…
Interlocutory Injunctions
Introduction
Campus Oil v Minister of Industry and Energy
Interlocutory relief is granted to an applicant where wht he complains of is continuing and is causing him harm or injiry which may be irreparable in the sense that it may not be possible to compensae him fairly or properly by an award of damages
Such relief is given because a period must necessarily elapse before teh action can come for trial and for the purpose of keeping matters in status quo until the hearing
PROCEDURE
Application for interlocutory injunction heard on affidavit
Means there is no oral evidence, no cross-examination or rexamination of witnesses
A full definitive view cannot be formed re merits of the case at this stage
P must give an undertaking as to damages- undertake to compensate D if P is granted an interlocutory injunction but does not succed at the trial of the action
non-compliance=contempt of court
He who seeks equity must do equity
Preserves status quo pending the trial of an action
MJELR v Devine: SC found that the state when seeking an interim injunction restraining an individual from dealing with land in the state was also required to give an undertaking as to damages
Discretion to enforce undertaking:
IBRC v Quinn:
Peart J : Courts have discretion not to enforce an undertaking as to damages
P had gone into liquidation and the defendants sought to have injunctions discharged as undertakings were now worthless but the Court refused application
FORMER TEST
HAS THE P PROVED A PRIMA FACIE CASE
SC in
Esso Petrolium v Fogarty
H of Ls
JT Stratford and Sons v Lindley
Rejected by H of Ls in
American Cyanamid v Ethicon
More appropriate test set out
is there a serious question to be tried
P must prove claim is neither frivolous nor vexatious
It is not for the Court at this stage to try to resolve conflicts of evidence on affidavit or to devide questions of law- those matters are to be dealt with a trial
Where here is a serious question to be tired the court would ask: In whose facour does the balance of convenience lie
Ibe sycg natter to be considered is the adequacy of damages for the parties
If an interlocutory injunction is refused, but P succeeds at trial, could P be compensated adequately for any loss he sustained as a result of an interlocutory inunction being wrongly refused?
Affirmative answer to this qu would wiegh in favour of an interlocutory injunction being refused
2, If an interlocutory injunction granted, but D succeeds at trial, coudl D be compensated adequately for any loss he sustained as a result of an interlocutory injunction being wrongly granted?
An affirmative answer to this qu would wigh in favour of an interlocutory ijunction being granted
Campus Oil and Ors v Minister of Industry and Energy
FACTS: Ministerial order required P, an oil co, to purchase a specified proportion of its petrol from a State-owned oil refinery
P sought declaration order contrary to A30 and 31 EEC
Preliminary reference to European court of Justice
ISSUE: Pending resolution of claim, D sought an interlocutory injunction to compel P to comply w terms of the Order
HELD:
SC endorsed American Cyanmid v Ethicon
Not only will the court have regard to
what is complained of
and whether damages would be an appropriate remedy
but it will consider what inconvenience, loss and damage might be caused to the other party
and will enquire whether the applicant has shown that the balance of convenience is in his favour
THE TEST TO BE APPLIED IS WHETHER A FAIR BONA FIDE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE PRESON SEEKING RELIEF
If such a qu has been raised, it is not for the Court to determine that qu on an interlocutory application
that remains to be decide at the trial
Once fair qu raised, the court shoudl consider the other amtters which are appropriate to the exercise of its discretion to grant interlocutory relief
Note the viws of American Cyanmind- i.e. the two qus re adequacy of damages
Application of Campus Oil
Westman Holdings v McCormack
FACTS: P sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain picketing
Whilst the loss P might suffer were an interloctory injunction not granted could be quantified in monetary terms, several of the individual Ds were impecunious and the D Trade Union had a possible immunity from liability
unlikley that compensation would in fact be recoverable
Held: Could not be said tht damages would be an adequate remedy for P
On the other hand, P's undertaking as to damages would adequately compensate D if they succeeded at trail
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION GRANTED
JRM Sports v The Football Association of Irleand
HC held that damages would not be an adequate remedy bc of important sporting considerations at issue
McLoughlin v Sentant Insurance Services
HC Noted that damages can never be an adequate remedy where there is real prospect fof reputational damage to the party seeking an injunction
Affirmed in Wallace v Irish Aviation authority
Balance of Convenience
Adequacy of damages
Unclear whether adequacy of damages forms part of the balance-of-convenience test or a separate consideration
In recent times separate identity, at least so far as adequacy of damages is convered
Smithkline Beecham v Gentham: HC thought that the qu of the adequacy of dmages ought to be approproached separately from the balance of convenience
Kelly J felt that damages were an adequate remedy therefore there was no need to go further to discuss the balance of convenience
Maintain Status quo
In deciding whose favour the balance of convenience lies, the courts' preference to maintain the status quo will weigh in favour of P
Private Research Ltd v Brosnan:
Weighing heavily in favour of the P is the general rule that, where possible
the court shuld strive to maintain the status quo.
However, this is only one element in considering the balance of convenience and there is no absolute rule that the status quo must be maintained
Biehler: Most common approach: Clarke J- where he asks
Whether the P has made out a fair case to be tried
Whehter damages would be an adequate remedy
If the answer to this is negative, then to ask where the balanace of convenience lies
Metro International SA v Independent News and Media: Clark J said the qu as to whether the criteria referred to above are viewed as a single test of the balance of convenience of which teh adequacy of damages is a potentially significant part or as two separate tests is 'more a matter of semantics than substance'
GOOD STATEMENT OF HOW TO APPLY TEST
Okunade v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
Clark J considered the situation when damages would not be an adequate remedy for the P
Court must consider whether, if ti does grant the injunction at interlocutory stage, whether the P's undertakings to damages will adequately compensate the D if the latter is successful at trial of teh action and if it does then the injunction will normally be granted
Whereas if the undertaking not deemed to be likely to compensate the D for loss incurred by reason of an injunction being granted, then it would be refused
Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions
Whether or not the court, in decideing whether or not to grant a mandatory interlocutory injunction, departs from first Campus Oil Pinciple, namely the need to prove a fair bona fide question to be tried
Boyham v Tribunal of Inquiry into the Beef Industry: Trend towards considering the strength of Ps case in an application for an interlocturoy mandatory injunction
FACTS: Ps sought mandatory injunction compelling D to grant full legal representation
HELD: HC refused relief sought
' it is up to the ps to establish
a strong and clear case- so that the court can feel a degree of ssurance that at a trial of he action a similar injunction would be granted
Boyle v An Post:
Facts: Ds payroll computer was shut down after number of employees suspended
ISSUE: Ps sought a mandatory interlocutory injunction compelling D to pay wages
Held: HC relief granted- satisfied Ps bound to succeed at trial
Sheehy v Ryan: HC applied Campus oil principles BUT noted that in general the courts are reluctant to grant mandatory interlocutory relief except in truly EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
LINGHAM
Lingham v Health Service Executive: SC examined issue
It is well established that the ordinary test of a fair case to be tried is not sufficient to meet the first leg of the test for the grant of an interlocutory injunction where the injunction sought is in effect mandatory
IN SUCH A CASE IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AT LEAST THAT HE HAS
A STRONG CASE THAT HE IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED AT THE HEARING OF THE ACTION
CURRENT POSITION
P must prove she has a strong case that is likely to succeed at trial
this is more difficutl to proe than a bona fide qu to be tried
Higher threshold- mandatory injunction more onerous i.e. the compelling of con performance
Tola Capital Management LLc v Joseph Linders
HC: Cregan J held that where the order sought is mandatory the the P must establish:
Lingham: ' he has a 'strong case that he is likelt to succeed at trial of the action
and where an mandatory injunction is sought the court should adopt
Shelbourne Hotel: whatever course would carry the lower risk of injustive
HC BRINGING BACK IN HIS LANGUAGE- rem to mention Shelbourne but know test
Naujoks v National Institue of Bioprocessing Research and Training
HC applied the test in Campus oil and then applied the SC decision in Lingham
Required P to discharge an onus of estab a strong case he is likely to succeed
Shelbourne Hotel Holdings Ltd v Torriam Hotel
Difference approach which invovles seeking to minimise the risk of injustive by making the 'wrong' decision at interlocutory stage
Kelly J felt there were conflicting approaches in Lingham to that of Campus Oil
Preferred reasoning in English case
Films Rover International v Cannon Film Sales
: Court should adopt whatever course would carry lower risk of injustice if it turns out to be the 'wrong' decision
Grant of mandatory inerlocotory injunction exceptional
Interlocutory Quia Timet Injunctions
Szabo v Esat Digiphone Ltd:
Geogehan J adopted and accepted the treatment of interlocutory injunctions in Spry on Equitable remedies:
There is no difference in the legal principles to be applied to a quia timet injunction as to any other injunction
there is no difference between the principles to be applied to an interlocutory quia timet injunction than to the granting of any other kind of inunction
THIS MEANS THAT IF THE INTERLOCUTORY QUIA TIET INJUNCTION IS:
PROHIBITORY= CAMPUS OIL
MANDATORY= LINGHAM