The court laid down tests for the granting of mandatory interim injunctions. The court should consider whether there was a high degree of confidence that the applicant would succeed in establishing his right at trial. The higher that confidence, the better the chances of avoiding injustice. The court might still grant an injunction where the chances of success are lower, but the possible prejudice is greater.
The court set out what was meant by the test for the ‘balance of convenience’: ‘In my view the principles to be applied are these. First, this being an interlocutory matter, the overriding consideration is which course is likely to involve the least risk of injustice if it turns out to be ‘wrong’ in the sense described by Hoffmann J. [as he then was].
Secondly, in considering whether to grant a mandatory injunction, the court must keep in mind that an order which requires a party to take some positive step at an interlocutory stage, may well carry a greater risk of injustice if it turns out to have been wrongly made than an order which merely prohibits action, thereby preserving the status quo.
Thirdly, it is legitimate, where a mandatory injunction is sought, to consider whether the court does feel a high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will be able to establish his right at a trial. That is because the greater the degree of assurance the plaintiff will ultimately establish his right, the less will be the risk of injustice if the injunction is granted.
But, finally, even where the court is unable to feel any high degree of assurance that the plaintiff will establish his right, there may still be circumstances in which it is appropriate to grant a mandatory injunction at an interlocutory stage. Those circumstances will exist where the risk of injustice if this injunction is refused sufficiently outweigh the risk of injustice if it is granted.’
Judges:
Chadwick J
Citations:
Times 02-May-2003, [1993] FSR 468
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Choudry and others v Triesman ChD 31-Mar-2003
The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent general secretary of the Labour Party to allow them to stand as candidates for the party in the forthcoming local elections. After allegations about the way in which selection had been carried . .
Approved – Zockoll Group Limited v Mercury Communications Limited CA 8-Jul-1997
. .
Cited – Jewellery Appraisal Services v Belson and others QBD 11-Apr-2005
The defendants had sold a business and included a non-compete covenant. The claimants sought to enforce it against them. It was said that they had approached insurers with a view to commencing business supplying jewelry. The defendants said their . .
Approved – Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Limited CA 27-Aug-1997
The plaintiffs appealed against refusal of an interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants, ‘Mercury’ from withdrawing from Zockoll the use of a particular telephone number, 0500 354448. Immediately upon that Order being made, Mercury . .
Cited – Donnelly and others v Weybridge Construction Ltd TCC 22-Mar-2006
Application for specific dicslosure order. . .
Cited – Udal and Another v Dutton and Another TCC 30-Nov-2007
The claimants sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from demolishing a party wall in the garden. . .
Cited – Lonrho Africa (Holdings) Ltd v Norse Air Ltd and Others ComC 13-Mar-2008
. .
Cited – AMEC Group Ltd v Universal Steels (Scotland) Ltd TCC 25-Mar-2009
The claimant sought an interlocutory injunction to require the defendant to deliver up Quality Assurance documentation. . .
Cited – AON Ltd v JCT Reinsurance Brokers Ltd and Others QBD 7-Oct-2009
The claimant said that the defendant had encouraged a team of its workers to break their contracts and to leave to work with the defendants. . .
Cited – Landmark Brickwork Ltd v Sutcliffe and Others QBD 17-May-2011
The claimant company sought interlocutory orders against its former senior officers. . .
Appeal from – Nottingham Building Society v Eurodynamics Systems plc CA 1995
Dictum at first instance approved. . .
Cited – Nugent v Nugent ChD 20-Dec-2013
The court was asked whether the court has, following the the 2002 Act, an inherent power to order the cancellation of a unilateral notice registered against a title registered under the 2002 Act and, if so, in what circumstances, and how, such a . .
Cited – Bains and Others v Moore and Others QBD 15-Feb-2017
The claimant anti-asbestos campaigners complained that the defendant investigators had infringed their various rights of privacy. They now sought discovery to support the claim.
Held: the contents of the witness statements do show that it is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181840