The grant of an interlocutory injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, depends on what is sometimes called the balance of convenience but is more accurately an assessment of whether granting or withholding the injunction at that stage is more likely in the end to produce a just result. The features which ordinarily justify describing an injunction as mandatory are often more likely to cause irremediable prejudice than in cases in which a defendant is merely prevented from taking or continuing with some course of action.
Hoffmann J
[1987] 1 WLR 670
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Gujadhur and others v Gujadhur and Another PC 26-Jul-2007
(Mauritius) In a family company, some shares were held as nominees. When called to retransfer them, they said the agreement was statute-barred.
Held: The requirements of the refere procedure were satisfied and that a mandatory order should be . .
Cited – EE and Brian Smith (1928) Ltd v Hodson and others CA 23-Nov-2007
The defendants appealed grant of an interim injunction to enforce restrictive employment covenants. The second defendant had sold his interest in the claimant company in 2001, but after his consultancy ended, he set up another business, the third . .
Cited – National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corp Ltd (Jamaica) PC 28-Apr-2009
Jamaica – The customer appealed against refusal of an order requiring its bank not to close the customer accounts after the customer had been accused of fraud. There was no evidence that the account was being used unlawfully.
Held: In the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.258618
