Where a court referred an issue to the European Court, it was for that court in its discretion to decide whether interim relief might be granted, and an appellate court should not normally interfere in that exercise. The considerations for such a grant of interim relief pending a reference had been fully set out by the House of Lords in Factortame, being the threshold condition, the existence of a serious case to be tried, the balance of convenience, the strength of the case on the reference, and the potential losses incurred according to the grant or refusal of interim relief. Referring to a speech from Lord Goff in Factortame (2): ‘I venture to draw from that latter passage that Lord Goff was recognising that there may be an unusual – I infer in Lord Goff’s view it would be a very unusual case – where there was no strong prima facie case that the law was invalid, but where, nevertheless, it would be appropriate because of the weight of other factors to grant interim relief. But that case apart, Lord Goff in my judgment appears to regard the importance of not restraining a public authority by interim injunction except in a case such as that he refers to at the end of the passages I have cited as being, not a paramount factor, but an important threshold principle to which the court that is being asked to consider interim relief must direct its attention in the first instance.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Buxton
Citations:
Times 17-Oct-2000, (2000) IRLR 565
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (No 2) HL 11-Oct-1990
The validity of certain United Kingdom legislation was challenged on the basis that it contravened provisions of the EEC Treaty by depriving the applicants of their Community rights to fish in European waters, and an interlocutory injunction was . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte Trades Union Congress Admn 23-May-2000
. .
Cited by:
Cited – International Transport Workers’ Federation and Another v Viking Line Abp and Another CA 3-Nov-2005
An order had been made restraining the defendant trades unions from taking industrial action. The unions said the UK court had no jurisdiction.
Held: ‘It is at first sight surprising that the English Commercial Court should be the forum in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, European
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87956