(Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit USA) The defendant said that he had suffered greater damage than the amount set down in a bond provided for security when the plaintiff requested an interim injunction. The action had failed.
Held: Judge Kenyon said: ‘Restitution of the amount received under a decree, afterwards reversed, will be ordered in equity, and will sustain an action at law. But the condition of the restoration is always that the party against whom restitution is sought shall have received, by virtue of the decree, what he is asked to restore. There is no support in reason or authority for an extension of the doctrine of restitution to cover an award of damages, which the restorer never received, and so in no true sense could restore.’
‘There is nothing certain as to the amount of damages suffered by defendant by reason of the improvident granting of the preliminary injunction. Nothing was taken from it by the injunction and given to the plaintiff. We see no room for the application of the doctrine of restitution here.’
(1932) 57 F 2d 479
Cited – Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2) CA 23-May-2006
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Equity
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.242621