Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Specific Circumstances in which an Injunction may be granted (CONTRACTS…
Specific Circumstances in which an Injunction may be granted
TO RESTRAIN A BREACH OF CONTRACT
Doherty v Allman:
Suggests that a prohibitory interlocturoy injunction to enfroce a negative contractual undertaking will issue AS A MATTER OF COURSE and without regard to the balance of convenience
If parties contract that a particular thing shall not be done, all the Court of Equity has to do is say by way of injunction, that which the parties
have already said by way of covenant
that the thing shall not be done
: It is not then a qu of a balance of convenience or inconvenience, it is specific performance of what the parties have agreed
Doherty accepted by SC in
Dublin Port and Docks Board v Britanica Dredging Co
Facts: P sought an inerlocutory injunction to restrain D from removing equipment from which D had undertaken to carry out work
SC satisfied that D had greed to the negative term i.e. not to remove the equipment and its breach was imminent
HELD: SC: 'the court is not concerned to examine either the balance of convenience or the amount of damage'
The defendants have not shown they are not bond by the contract relied upon by the Ps, and the position is therefore not different from what it owuld be if at the trial the court should reach same conclusion'
What if argument: There is a contract which binds me, but what I proposed to do would not breach that contract?
*
TMG Group v Al Babtain Holding Construction*
Facts: The Ds strenuously contend that neither of the transaction which the co proposes to enter into will constitute a breach of their contractual obligations
Held; observations in Britanica confined to a case where one party to a contract was proposing to act in breach of a negative contract in circumstances where the Court is not satisfied on the evidence that they were entitled so to do
I do not think tht the passage lends any support to the proposition that even where the violation of the P's right is denied, as it unquestionably is in the present case, the Court can disregard the balance of convenience to the parties
Irish Shell v Elm Motors
: SC- I repeat firm view, that save in the most exceptional circumstances, the determination of an application for interlocutory injuncion lies, and lies only in teh answers to the two material qus:
Fair case to be made
Where balance of convenience lies
MOST IMPORTANT CASE:
Premier Daries v Doyle
: A diary was seeking to enforce distribution agreements against milkmen with whom it was in dispute
In particular, clauses which prevented the milkmen from competing with the dairy by selling products of other producers
Held: O'Flaherty J dismissed appeal
As it was Competition Act 1991 might be applicable to the case, it was not apporpriate to apply the test enunciated in Britannia Dredging
Rather Campus Oil Principles ought to be applied
REPRESENTS THE MODERN ORTHODOXY: except perhaps in circumstances where there is a clear breach of an undertaking, the applicability and enforceability of which are not in issue
Where prohibitory interlocutory injunction is sought to restrain the breach of a negative contractual undertaking- the Campus Oil principles to not apply and relief is granted, only if there is no arguable defence to P's claim:
D does not dispute
The existence of the undertaking
Its enforceability
The contention that its breach is imminent
Otherwise, the Campus Oil principles do apply
A POSITIVE CONTRACTUAL UNDERTAKING MAY BE INTERPRETED AS A NEGATIVE ONE
Metropolitan Electric Supply v Ginder
Facts: D agree to purchase all of his electricity requirements from P
Court construed this postiive contractual undertaking s an undertaking on Ds part not to purchase electricity from another supplier
Held: Injunction granted
NOTE: Court prefer negative, reluctant to grant mandatory- compel someone to do something
A
negative
contractual undertaking
requires a party to contract not to do someting
A
positive
contractual undertaking
Requires a party to contract to do something
Enforcement of
A negative contractual undertaking pending trial= prohibitory interlocutory inunction
The enforcement of a negative contractual undertaking pending trial may require a mandatory interlocutory injunction
That is to say, D must be compelled to do something to ensure compliance with the negative contractual undertaking
Shepherd Homes v Sandham:
Facts: D covenanted with P that D would not build a fence
Issue: In breach of covenant, D erected a fence- P sought a mandatory injunction compelling D to remove fence
Held; Refused relief sought- Megarry J remarked the court would exercise its discretion against the grant of an injunction much more readily where mandatory relief sought
TO RESTRAIN THE COMMISSION OF A TORT
Most commonly sought in respect of nuisance and trespass
Trespass actionable per se and w/o proof of damage- an injunction particularly effective remedy, since damages may be no more than nominal
Rarely granted to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory material
TO RESTRAIN A BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
However, such an injunction will be granted only if it is the only effective means of protecting the constitutional right in question
O'Connor v Williams;
Facts: Ps taxi drivers
Alleged Ds were conducting their business contrary to Road Traffic Regulations
ISSUE: Ps alleged this breached constitutional right to earn a livelihood
HELD: Relief refused
The Regulations prescribed penalties re their breach
Most appropriate way to protect Ps constitutional rights was by way of criminal law
SPUC v Grogan
Facts: P soight an interlocutory injunction restraining D from distributing info about abortion services to avail of outside state
HC- Carroll J decided to refer Questions to the ECJ- preliminary reference procedure w/o granting an injunction
ISSUE: SC allowed appeal against her refusal to grant injunction
HELD: it was inappropriate to approach the exercise of the discretion to grant or refuse an interlocutory injunction on the basis of the status quo consisting of activities which are constitutionally forbidden acts
The true principle which falls to be considered is the unqualified existence of the relevant provisions of the Constitution at the time of the application for the injunction
RE BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE- The only matter which might properly be weighed in the balance is the existence of a competing cons
Parsons v Kavangh:
O'Hanlon J granted an injunction to restrain the operation of D's unlicensed bus service
P was licensed competitor
The basis for the decision was that the impugned activity breached P's Constitutional right to earn a livelihood
Albion Propertiees v Moonblast Limited:
Hogan J said tht the courts are under a clear constiuttional duty to ensure remedies available to protect and vindicate the Ps property rights are real and effective
TO PROTECT PUBLIC RIGHTS
AG v Paperlink: Applicantion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Ds from acting in breach of Post Office Act 1908
HC accepted the AG may be granted an injunction to restrain an activity that breaches a statutory provision
Dunne v DL Rathdown CC: application for interlocutory injunctions to restrain D from interfering with remains of castle
Ps claimed the castle was national monument
SC applied Campus Oil
Hardiman J satisfied P had met higher standard of probability of success at trial
SPUC v Coogan
SC HELD: any person demonstrating a bona fide interest in the enforcement of A40.3.3 may apply for an injunction to ensure compliance with it
Held: P had such an interest and concern
CONTRACTS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
While court will not compel a person to work against his will or for another person, they may be prepared to enforce an undetaking not to work for/with someone else
Lumley v Wagner
Facts: D agreed to sing for prescribed period, at P's theatre
and not during that period to perform elsewhere
Issue: agreed to sing at another ehatre for a larger fee
P sought to restrain her from doing so
Held; Granted Injunction
But noted D could not be compelled to honour the positive term of her contract with P
NOTED: sometimes practical effect of enforcing a negative undertaking i.e. the individual may then have no option but to stay with an original employer as they have to work
Warren v Mendy
Facts: P was a boxing manager who entered into 3 year management contract with a boxer
the boxer undertook not to enter into a management agreement with anyone else during period
ISSUE: Did so with the D
P sought an injunction to restrain D from both inducing breach of contract and from acting as the bower's manager
HELD: C of A refused to grant the injunction
Described approach taken in Warner Bros As 'extraordinarily unrealistic'
The COurt ought not to enforce the performance of the negative obligations if their enforcement will effectively compel the servant to perform his positive obligations under the contract
The longer the term for which an injunction is sought the more readily will compulsion be inferred
Injunction will less readily be granted where there are obligtions of mutual trust and confidence, more especially where the servant's trust in the master may have been betrayed or his confidence in him has genuinely gone
LENIENT APPROACH- undermines enforcibility of contracts
MODERN DECISIONS DEMONSTRATE A TENDENCY TO ENFORCE CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES WHEN EMPLOYEE IS SEEKING TO RESTRAIN HIS DISMISSAL
Bergin v Galway Clinic Doughiska Ltd
Clark J set out that in any case in which an employee seeks to prevent dismissal this is in effect a claim for a mandatory injunction
which has he effect of necessarily continuing his contract of employment
-In those circumstances it is necessary for the employee concerned to estab a strong case to be tried
BE CONSCIOUS OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION BEING DRESSED IN DIFFERENT
CLOTHING
))
Moore v Xnet Information Services
Held: HC: when the relationship between the parties has broken down to a significant extent, an order to reinstate the employee will not be made
P had raised a fair Question to be tried
Order made directing D to continue to Ps salary pending the trial, subject to P's undertaking to perform any work required to do
- No order for reinstatement given the breakdown of relationship
Yap v Childrens Univesity Hospital Temple Street
Clarke J: there are very limited circumstances in which the court will intervene to force a continuation of a contract of employment
particularly where there is a serious controversy
but it may be subject to qualification in the interests of justice
Hill v CA Parsons and Co:
-Injunction granted against employer to restrain alleged wrongful dismissal of an employee, in circumstances where the employer had reluctantly been forced to do so due to pressure exerted by trade union the employee had refused to join
Warner Bros Pictures Incorporated v Nelson
Facts: P sought an injunction to enforce a term in its contract with D, that D would not act for another studio during 5 year period
Held: Relief granted rrelief on the basis that the court may enforce a neative undertaking os long s such enforcement does not
Amount to ordering specifi performance of teh cotnract by requiring D to work for P
Compel D to lie idle
Enforcement of negative undertaking would have neither of these effects