The court explained Chief Constable of Kent -v- V: ‘jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the application of the Chief Constable in that case existed only if he could be found to have a sufficient interest in making the application, and they appear broadly to have been in agreement as to the foundation of the interest which they held to exist and to be sufficient. That was found to be in the duty of the Chief Constable to seize and detain goods stolen or unlawfully obtained and to restore them to their true owner, a similar duty being applied by analogy to intangible assets such as a credit in a bank account.’
Judges:
Oliver LJ
Citations:
[1984] CLY 2650, [1985] QB 132
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1985
In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal . .
Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.183551