The defendants were Mineralimportexport and a freezing injunction was initially granted to prevent them from removing from the jurisdiction (just before Christmas) a cargo on a third party’s vessel which was only on voyage charter to Mineralimportexport.
Held: The Court categorically refused to continue the interim injunction on any terms, since it could effectively block the third party’s vessel indefinitely.
The effect on third parties should be taken into account when granting an interim injunction.
Eveleigh LJ said: ‘I regard it as absolutely intolerable that the fact that one person has a claim for a debt against another, that third parties should be inconvenienced in this way, not only to affect their freedom of trading but their freedom of action generally speaking.’
Kerr LJ said: ‘But where the effect of service must lead to interference with the performance of a contract between the third party and the defendant which relates specifically to the assets in question, the right of the third party in relation to his contract must clearly prevail over the plaintiff’s desire to secure the defendant’s assets for himself against the day of judgment . .
Where the effect of service of the injunction on the third party substantially interferes with the third party’s business, the rights of the third party must in my view always prevail over the desire of the plaintiff to secure the ultimate recovery of debts or damages from the defendant with which the third party is in no way concerned.’
and ‘ A Plaintiff seeking to secure an alleged debt or damages due from the Defendant, by an order preventing the disposal of assets of the Defendant, cannot possibly be entitled to obtain the advantage of such an order for himself at the expense of the business rights of an innocent third party, nearly by proffering him an indemnity in whatever form.’
Judges:
Eveleigh LJ, Kerr LJ
Citations:
[1982] 1 WLR 539, [1982] 1 All ER 796
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Miller Brewing Co v Ruhl Enterprises Ltd and another ; Miller Brewing Co v Mersey Docks and Harbour Co amd Others ChD 23-May-2003
The claimant obtained an interim injunction in respect of alleged infringement of its trade marks in beers brewed under licence by the respondents. They said the beers produced were of inferior quality, and threatened the brand. The grant of such . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.183837