In the context of an interlocutory application for an enforcing a mandatory injunction, Megarry J said: ‘on motion, as contrasted with the trial, the court is far more reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction than it would be to grant a comparable prohibitory injunction. In a normal case the court must, inter alia, feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it will appear that the injunction was rightly granted; and this is a higher standard than is required for a prohibitory injunction.’
Megarry J. spelled out some of the reasons why mandatory injunctions generally carry a higher risk of injustice if granted at the interlocutory stage: ‘they usually go further than the preservation of the status quo by requiring a party to take some new positive step or undo what he has done in the past; an order requiring a party to take positive steps usually causes more waste of time and money if it turns out to have been wrongly granted than an order which merely causes delay by restraining him from doing something which it appears at the trial he was entitled to do; a mandatory order usually gives a party the whole of the relief which he claims in the writ and make it unlikely that there will be a trial. One could add other reasons, such as that mandatory injunctions (whether interlocutory or final) are often difficult to formulate with sufficient precision to be enforceable. In addition to all these practical considerations, there is also what might be loosely called a ‘due process’ question. An order requiring someone to do something is usually perceived as a more intrusive exercise of the coercive power of the state than an order requiring him temporarily to refrain from action. The court is therefore more reluctant to make such an order against a party who has not had the protection of a full hearing at trial.’
Megarry J
[1971] Ch 340, (1970) 3 All ER 402
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corp Ltd (Jamaica) PC 28-Apr-2009
Jamaica – The customer appealed against refusal of an order requiring its bank not to close the customer accounts after the customer had been accused of fraud. There was no evidence that the account was being used unlawfully.
Held: In the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.346206
