Injunctions in UK Law

In this Topic
Leading Cases
  • Brink's Mat Ltd v Elcombe
    • Court of Appeal
    • 12 Jun 1987

    In one or two other recent cases coming before this court, I have suspected signs of a growing tendency on the part of some litigants against whom ex parte injunctions have been granted, or of their legal advisers, to rush to the R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners principle as a tabula in naufragio, alleging material non-disclosure on sometimes rather slender grounds, as representing substantially the only hope of obtaining the discharge of injunctions in cases where there is little hope of doing so on the substantial merits of the case or on the balance of convenience.

  • South Carolina Insurance Company v Assurantie Maatschappij ‘De Zeven Provincien’South Carolina Insurance Company v Assurantie Maatschappij N.v
    • House of Lords
    • 29 Jul 1986

    Situation (1) is when one party to an action can show that the other party has either invaded, or threatens to invade, a legal or equitable right of the former for the enforcement of which the latter is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. Situation (2) is where one party to an action has behaved, or threatens to behave, in a manner which is unconscionable.

  • N.W.L. Ltd v Woods
    • House of Lords
    • 25 Oct 1979

    Where, however, the grant or refusal of the interlocutory injunction will have the practical effect of putting an end to the action because the harm that will have been already caused to the losing party by its grant or its refusal is complete and of a kind for which money cannot constitute any worthwhile recompense, the degree of likelihood that the plaintiff would have succeeded in establishing his right to an injunction if the action had gone to trial, is a factor to be brought into the balance by the judge in weighing the risks that injustice may result from his deciding the application one way rather than the other.

  • Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Compania Naviera S.A.
    • House of Lords
    • 26 Oct 1977

    A right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is not a cause of action. It is dependent upon there being a pre-existing cause of action against the defendant arising out of an invasion, actual or theatened by him, of a legal or equitable right of the plaintiff for the enforcement of which the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. The right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is merely ancillary and incidental to the pre-existing cause of action.

  • R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2)
    • House of Lords
    • 11 Oct 1990

    If the legislature intended to give the court jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions against the Crown, it is difficult to think of any reason why the jurisdiction should be available only in judicial review proceedings and not in civil proceedings as defined in the Act of 1947. Hence, an enactment which in terms applies only to the forms of final relief available in judicial review proceedings cannot possibly have been so intended.

  • Hadmor Productions Ltd and Others v Hamilton and Another
    • House of Lords
    • 01 Ene 1982

    It may set aside the judge's exercise of his discretion on the ground that it was based upon a misunderstanding of the law or of the evidence before him or upon an inference that particular facts existed or did not exist, which, although it was one that might legitimately have been drawn upon the evidence that was before the judge, can be demonstrated to be wrong by further evidence that has become available by the time of the appeal: or upon the ground that there has been a change of circumstances after the judge made his order that would have justified his acceding to an application to vary it.

  • Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL
    • Court of Appeal
    • 16 Dic 1981

    It follows that in my view Mareva injunctions should be granted, but granted only, when it appears to the court that there is a combination of two circumstances. Secondly, when there are also reasons to believe that the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction to meet the judgment, in whole or in part, but may well take steps designed to ensure that these are no longer available or traceable when judgment is given against him.

See all results
Legislation
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results