Injunctions - Irish Equity

Injunctions

General principles on which perpetual injunctions granted

• Curust Financial Services v Loewe Lack (SC)

  • The parties entered a contract together pursuant to which the plaintiffs were exclusively entitled to deal in its products in Ireland.

  • The defendant later sought to assign these rights to another party and the plaintiffs applied for a interlocutory injunction against them.

  • Held that, since the loss that would occur to the plaintiffs pending the action would be clearly and exclusively a commercial loss, in what had been a stable and well-established market, it would prima facie be a loss capable of being assessed in damages (both past and potential future)

  • Difficulty in assessing these damages (in contrast to complete impossibility) should not be a ground for holding that damages are an inadequate remedy.

  • The question as to whether an injunction should apply save where the loss suffered is small applies to permanent rather than interlocutory injunctions.

• Sheridan v Louis Fitzgerald Group (HC)

  • Plaintif sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from granting to a third party the right to provide restaraunt and catering services at the defendant's public house, an activity which had previously been carried out by a company in which the plaintiff had an interest.

  • Curust applied

  • The plaintiff would be entitled to damages for any loss which he could establish would be likely to arise subsequent to the date of the assessment of damages.

  • While there would be difficulties in making such an assessment, such difficulty fell far short of the complete impossibility identified in Curust – thus damages would be an adequate remedy and an interlocutory injunctioin would be inappropriate.

• Argyll v Argyll

  • The plaintiff's immoral conduct led to her husband divorcing her.

  • She later took an action against him to restrain a breach of confidence.

  • Held that, a person coming to equity to relief must come with clean hands, but the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief that is sought.

  • Thus, the immoral conduct in this case did not disentitle her to an injunction against her husband.

• Chappell v Times Newspapers (CA)

  • Concerned a dispute between unions and employers in the newspaper industry

  • Held that, he who seeks equity must do equity

  • Thus plaintiffs had not been involved in any industrial action but refused to give undertakings sought by their employers not to engage in disruptive activities.

  • Thus the court could refuse to grant an interim injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that they themselves intended to act equitably by abiding by the terms of ther contracts of employment.

• Shaw v Applegate (CA)

  • The defendant had covenanted not to use property which he had purchased as an amusement arcade.

  • The benefit of this covenant was assigned to the plaintiff, who sued for its breach a number of years after the breach began.

  • Held that, to deprive the plaintiff of a legal right on the ground of acquiescence the situation must be such that it would be dishonest or unconscionable for him to continue to enforce it.

  • Since in the years in question, the plaintiffs were confused as to whether there had been a breach of covenant it could not be said that they had been acting dishonest or unconscionably, but given the expenditure made and goodwill built up by the defendant, the appropriate remedy was not an injunction but damages.

Jurisdiction to award damages in lieu of an injunction

• Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co.

  • The plaintiffs sued the defendants in order to have an injunction served against the operation of their engines.

  • Held that, it is good working rule that where the damage to the plaintiff's legal rights is A) small, B) capable of being estimated in money and C) can be adequately compensated in money and D) it would be oppressive to the defendant to award an injunction, then damages are the appropriate remedy.

  • There may be cases, although the four requirements above exist, the defendant's conduct has disentitled himself from asking to be excused an injunction.

  • In this case the requirements are met and an injunction should be awarded.

• Kennaway v Thompson

  • The plaintiff purchased a house next to a man-made lake which was used by a boat club.

  • She sued for an injunction to stop the nuisance caused by the club after they increased the frequency of their activities.

  • Held that, in cases of continuing nuisance the jurisdiction to award damages ought to be exercised only under very exceptionable circumstances.

  • The public interest in this case was not exceptional enough to prevail over private interests and the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction.

  • The injunction must balance the rights of the parties – a restriction on the size of the engines and a lessening in frequency will achieve this.

• Patterson v Murphy (HC)

  • The plaintiff bought land adjoining a quarry which was a source of noise and dust.

  • This resulted in shock to the plaintiffs and structural damage to their property, prevented them from sitting in their garden and eventually required them to leave and live in rented accommodation.

  • Held that, when an infringement of the plaintiffs' right and threatened further material infringement has been established the plaintiff is prima facie entitled to an injunction – the plaintiff will only be deprived of an injunction in very exceptional circumstances.

  • If the injury to the plaintiffs' rights is small and is one capable of being estimated in money and is one which can be adequately compensated by a small money payment and if the case is one in which it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction, then these are circumstances in which damages in lieu of an injunction may be granted.

  • The conduct of the plaintiff may be such as to disentitle him to an injunction, while the conduct of the defendant may be such as to disentitle him from seeking the substitution of damages for an injunction.

  • The mere fact that a wrong-doer is able and willing to pay for the injury he has inflicted is not a ground for substituting damages.

Principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions

• JT Stratford v v Lindley (HL)

  • Traditional test: a strong prima facie case, i.e. a probability that he would succeed in his claim at the hearing of the action.

• American Cyanimid Co. v Ethicon (HL)

  • The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from selling a product which they claimed infringed one of their patents.

  • Held that, the court must first assess whether there is a serious question to be tried – unless the evidence at the application for an interlocutory injunction establishes that the plaintiff has no prospect of success, the court should proceed to assess the case on the balance of convenience.

    • The first step in assessing this balance is to examine whether any loss suffered by plaintiff between the application and the trial would be capable of being compensated for in damages and that the defendant would be capable of paying such damages – in such case no injunction should be granted.

    • If the plaintiff establishes that this is not the case, then the court must examine whether the restraint imposed upon the defendant could be compensated by the paintiff – if this is so, then there is no reason not to grant the injunction.

    • Where the inquiries above leave the court in doubt, the best course of action is to maintain the status quo.

• Campus Oil v Minister for Energy (SC)

  • The plaintiffs refused to obey an order made by the defendants, claiming it was contrary to European law.

  • The defendants sought an interlocutory injunction to have the plaintiffs abide by the terms of the order until the determination of the case.

  • American Cyanimid applied.

  • Held that, an applicant for an interlocutory injunction must establish first, that there is a bona fide question to be tried concerning the existence of a right which he seeks to protect or enforce by the injunction and secondly, that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting the injunction.

  • Since the order had been made by powers granted to the Minister by the Oireachtas, since it had not been found invalid and since the public loss occasioned by the failure of the scheme of the order was not quantifiable in damages, the balance of convenience lay in favour of enforcing the order – although it was unusual to grant an interlocutory injunction in a mandatory form, it was justified by the special circumstances of this case.

• Westman Holdings v McCormack

  • The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from picketing their premises.

  • Held that, an interlocutory injunction was appropriate.

  • While the damage that would otherwise be suffered would be merely pecuniary, the combination of the inability of individual defendants to pay damages and the possible immunity from suit of the trade union made it improbable that the plaintiff would be able to obtain compensation.

  • On the other hand, the undertaking given by the plaintiff to compensate the defendants would be adequate to compensate their loss of wages and only their right to picket would remain uncompensated.

• Metro International SA v Independent News and Media (HC)

  • Plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the alleged infringement of a trademark.

  • There was a serious issue to be applied and damages were found inadequate.

  • ...