The plaintiff mine-owner having had a contract that the neighbouring land owner would not refill its reservoir which would result in its workings being flooded, and that contract having expired, now sought an injunction to prevent the reservoir from being refilled.
Held: The injunction could be granted in anticipation of the threatened action of refilling the reservoir.
Lord Hanworth MR said: When the Court has before it evidence sufficient to establish that an injury will be done if there is no intervention by the Court – it will act at once, and protect the rights of the party who is in fear, and thus supply the need of what has been termed protective justice. It is a very old principle. Sir E. Coke, 2nd Institute, p. 299, says 242 that ‘preventing justice excelleth punishing justice,’ and quotes Bracton’s advice: ‘Et hoc faciat tempestive, ne per negligentiam damnum incurrat, quia melius est in tempore occurrere quam post causam vulneratam remedium quaerere.’ (roughly: ‘it is better to restrain in time than to seek a remedy after the injury has been inflicted.’)
And
‘A quia timet action is not based upon hypothetical facts for the decision of an abstract question. When the court has before it evidence sufficient to establish that an injury will be done if there is no intervention by the court – it will act at once, and protect the rights of the party who is in fear, and thus supply the need of what has been termed protective justice. It is a very old principle. . . . in the smallpox hospital case . . . Chitty J said that where it is certain that injury will arise, the court will at once interfere by injunction; and called attention to the words of Lord Eldon . . .: ‘extreme probability of irreparable injury’ and of Lord Brougham . . . from these authorities it appears that the action of the court in a quia timet action is one rather of procedure when it has become seized of facts which require its intervention. It takes the facts as they must appear to practical men; but it does require facts, and not mere suggestion.’
Judges:
Lord Hanworth MR
Citations:
[1927] WN 30, [1928] Ch 235
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation (No 2) 1928
The plaintiffs owned two collieries, worked as one. The defendant owned an adjacent reservoir, constructed in pursuance of a special Act, incorporating sections from the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847. Wanting to take their seams under the reservoir, . .
Earlier proceedings – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation 1926
In cases involving expert evidence only two experts are to be heard on each side, unless the judge is satisfied that by reason of special circumstances justice cannot be done without hearing further expert evidence. This rule does not exclude either . .
Cited by:
Cited – National Justice Compania Naviera S A v Prudential Assurance Company Ltd (‘The Ikarian Reefer’) 1993
Cresswell J spoke of the nature of the duty owed by expert witnesses: ‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:
1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the . .
Cited – Anglo Group Plc, Winther Brown and Co Ltd v Winter Brown and Co Ltd, BML (Office Computers) Ltd, Anglo Group Plc, BML (Office Computers) Ltd TCC 8-Mar-2000
Contract – Contract for provision of computer services – purchaser contract with finance company – duty of co-operation to be implied in computer contracts – practice – responsibilities of expert witnesses generally – whether computer company liable . .
Appeal from – Graigola Merthyr Co Ltd v Swansea Corporation HL 1929
The Act of 1893 provided that a successful defendant should be entitled to costs as between solicitor and client in an action in respect of ‘any act done in the pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament or of any public . .
Cited – Vastint Leeds Bv v Persons Unknown ChD 24-Sep-2018
The claimant company sought a final injunction to prevent others occupying its land in Leeds. It was a quia timet injunction anticipating future acts of occupation by caravans, fly-tipping and use of the land for illegal raves.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.269655
