Griffith v Blake
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Year | 1883 |
| Date | 1883 |
Interlocutory Injunction - Undertaking as to Damages.
Per Baggallay, Cotton, and Lindley, L.JJ., where an interlocutory injunction has been granted on the usual undertaking as to damages, if it afterwards is established at the trial that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction, an inquiry as to damages may be directed, though the plaintiff was not guilty of misrepresentation, suppression, or other default in obtaining the injunction.
Dictum of Jessel, M.R., in Smith v. DayF1 dissented from.
THIS was an appeal by the Defendants from an interim injunction granted by Mr. Justice Chitty to restrain the Defendants from carrying on their business so as to occasion a nuisance by noise to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs were solicitors, and occupied as offices the ground floor of a newly erected building in the Station Approach, Cardiff. A few months after they had taken possession, the Defendants, who were ironmongers and tinplate workers, became, about the end of 1882, occupiers of an adjoining house, which they used for the purposes of their trade. The present action was commenced on the 20th of March, 1884, the ground of complaint being that the Defendants carried on processes which caused such noise and vibration in the Plaintiffs' offices as materially to interfere with the carrying on of the Plaintiffs' business. The Defendants, it appeared, had given a notice to quit, which would expire in July, 1884.
The Plaintiffs on the 9th of May moved for an injunction before Mr. Justice Chitty, and his Lordship said that the Court ought not to grant the injunction unless it was reasonably satisfied that the Plaintiffs' case would be sustained at the trial, and that it might turn out when the witnesses were seen that the facts would assume a different complexion; but the Court must decide on the evidence now before it. His Lordship then examined the evidence, and stated his conclusion to be, that there was noise created by the Defendants' operations to that degree which the law considered to be a nuisance. His Lordship, therefore, granted an injunction, the Plaintiffs undertaking to abide by any order the Court might make as to damages, in case the Court should thereafter be of opinion that the Defendants had sustained any by reason of the order, which the Plaintiffs ought to pay.
The Defendants appealed, and the appeal was heard on the 2nd of July...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
CHS CPO GmbH (in bankruptcy) and Another v Vikas Goel and Others
...as a matter of course (see, for example, the English Court of Appeal decisions of Graham v Campbell (1878) 7 Ch D 490; Griffith v Blake (1884) 27 Ch D 474; and Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Ricketts [1993] 1 WLR 1545; as well as the House of Lords decision of F Hoffmann-La Roch......
-
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and Another
... ... See Griffith v Blake [1884] 27 Ch D 474 , Vieweger Construction Co Ltd v Rush & Tompkins Construction Ltd [1965] 48 DLR (2d) 509 ... A defendant asking that ... ...
- The Coca-Cola Company v Raymond Ketteridge
-
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation Universal City Studios Productions Lllp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc
...because the party applying for the injunction did not have the rights claimed or they were not infringed or for some other reason: see Griffith v Blake (1884) 27 ChD 474 and F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co Ag v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 at 360–361 (Lord Diplock). By ......
