In re Liddell’s Settlement Trusts: CA 1936

The Court upheld an injunction issued against Mrs Liddell who was not a party to the proceedings and who had taken her children to the United States. When granting an injunction, the court should operate on the basis that it will be obeyed, and not anticipating its breach. The fact that an injunction may not be enforceable is not a conclusive reason against its grant. In re Aktiebolaget Robertsfors did not apply since she was ordinarily domiciled in the jurisdiction.


Romer LJ, Greene LJ


[1936] Ch 365


England and Wales


DistinguishedIn re Aktiebolaget Robertsfors and La Societe Anonymes des Papeteries de l’AA CA 1910
The court was asked to construe O.XI r.8A made in 1909 to extend the power to serve out of the jurisdiction to summonses, orders or notices.
Held: The power was only exercisable in situations where service out of a writ was permissible under . .

Cited by:

CitedWrexham County Borough Council v Berry; South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter and another; Chichester District Council v Searle and others HL 22-May-2003
The appellants challenged the refusal to grant them injunctions to prevent Roma parking caravans on land they had purchased.
Held: Parliament had given to local authorities exclusive jurisdiction on matters of planning policy, but when an . .
CitedMasri v Consolidated Contractors International Co Sal and Others HL 30-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce a judgment debt against a foreign resident company, and for this purpose to examine or have examined a director who lived abroad. The defendant said that the rules gave no such power and they did, the power was outside . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.182495