The requirement of proof is greater for a party seeking a quia timet injunction than otherwise. Lord Upjohn said: ‘A mandatory injunction can only be granted where the plaintiff shows a very strong probability upon the facts that grave danger will accrue to him in the future. As Lord Dunedin said in 1919 it is not sufficient to say ‘timeo’. [A-G for Canada v Ritchie Contracting]. It is a jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution but in the proper case unhesitatingly.’ and ‘[T]he court must be careful to see that the defendant knows exactly in fact what he has to do and this means not as a matter of law but as a matter of fact, so that in carrying out an order he can give his contractors the proper instructions.’
Judges:
Lord Upjohn
Citations:
[1970] AC 652, [1969] 2 WLR 1437, [1969] 2 All ER 576
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v Ritchie Contracting and Supply Co Ltd HL 1919
If there has been no intrusion upon the land of the plaintiff at all then the only remedy may be a quia timet prohibitory injunction: ‘But no-one can obtain a quia timet order by merely saying ‘Timeo’; he must aver and prove that what is going on is . .
Cited by:
Cited – Drury v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs CA 26-Feb-2004
Trespassers occupied part of the land owned by the claimant. They now appealed agaainst an injunction preventing them unlawfully occupying any part of the claimant’s land including areas not previously occupied.
Held: It was critical to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194594