Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co Ltd: HL 1919

If there has been no intrusion upon the land of the plaintiff at all then the only remedy may be a quia timet prohibitory injunction: ‘But no-one can obtain a quia timet order by merely saying ‘Timeo’; he must aver and prove that what is going on is calculated to infringe his rights.’

Citations:

[1919] AC 999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMorris v Redland Bricks Ltd HL 1969
The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. Lord Upjohn said: ‘A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave danger will . .
CitedDrury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 26-Feb-2004
Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. They now appealed agaainst an injunction preventing them unlawfully occupying any part of the claimant’s land including areas not previously occupied.
Held: It was critical to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194592