Lord Justice Sachs considered whether damages were an adequate remedy for the refusal of an injunction, and said: ‘The standard question in relation to the grant of an injunction, Are damages an adequate remedy?’ might perhaps, in the light of the authorities of recent years, be re-written as, ‘Is it just, in all the circumstances, that a plaintiff should be confined to his remedy in damages?’.’ . . and ‘The courts have repeatedly recognised there can be claims under contracts in which, as here, it is unjust to confine a plaintiff to his damages for their breach. Great difficulty in estimating these damages is one factor that can be and has been taken into account. Another factor is the creation of certain areas of damage which cannot be taken into monetary account in a common law action for breach of contract. Loss of goodwill and trade reputation are examples. Generally, indeed, the grant of injunctions in contract cases stems from such factors’.
Judges:
Sachs, Edmund Davies and Cairns LJJ
Citations:
[1973] 1 WLR 349
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – AB v CD QBD 3-Jan-2014
The parties were contracted to each other in respect of an internet based marketing system for metals and other resources. The claimant had contracted in effect to promote the system. The claimant sought an injunction to prevent termination of . .
Cited – NATS (Services) Ltd v Gatwick Airport Ltd and Another TCC 2-Oct-2014
NATS had tendered unsuccessfully for a contract to provide air traffic control services at Gatrwick airport, and challenged the award. GAL denied that the Regulations applied and now sought disapplication of the automatic suspension from the award . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Construction
Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.266304