(United States) A ‘wrongful’ injunction granted at the behest of a power company had stopped the county from receiving or using Federal funds to build a rival power station. Upon reversal of the decision and dissolution of the injunction the county claimed for the profits made by the power company from the injunction and for its losses.
Held: Judge Parker: ‘The county’s principal contention is that it is entitled to have restitution of the profits which it has lost and the power company has gained as a result of the injunctive orders; but we see no basis upon which any such relief can be granted. Restitution is awarded upon the principle that a party against whom an erroneous judgment or decree has been carried into effect is entitled, upon reversal, to that which he has lost thereby [authorities cited]. It cannot be awarded here, because the county has lost nothing which the power company has received, as a result of the injunctive orders of the court. The income received by the latter was received from the sale of power which it produced and had a right to sell. It received nothing from the county and nothing to which the county would have been entitled, or which it would have received, had the injunctive orders not been entered [authorities cited] The most that can be said is that the suit and the injunctive orders issued therein damaged the county by delaying the construction of its project and that the power company’s business profited by being freed of competition as a result of the delay; but to grant recovery on this basis would be to award damages on account of the suit and injunctive orders, which as we have seen, cannot be done. The effect of the rule cannot be avoided by calling a claim for damages one for restitution.’
Judges:
Parker K
Citations:
(1939) 107 F(2d) 484
Cited by:
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
International, Litigation Practice, Equity
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.242620