70 likes | 85 Views
This article explains the types of interim injunctions in civil procedure, including mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. It covers the criteria for granting an interim injunction, such as serious issue, adequacy of damages, and balance of convenience. The article also discusses exceptions to the American Cyanamid criteria and bars/defences to interim injunctions.
E N D
BVC Civil Procedure Interim Injunctions
Injunctions • Mandatory – compels a person to act in a particular way • Prohibitory – restrains a person from acting in a particular way • Final – an injunction which is granted as a remedy at the conclusion of civil proceedings • Interim – during proceedings
Injunctions • s37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981/s38 of the County Courts Act 1984 • South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558 • The Siskina [1979] AC 210 • Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] QB 727
Interim injunctions • PD 25.4 • CPR 25.2(2) (Bates v Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone [1972] 1 WLR 1373) • Draft order should be provided (PD 25.5.3) • (PD 25.5.1(1) ) – undertaking in damages • American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396
American Cyanamid criteria • serious issue to be tried • Adequacy of damages • Is the respondent adequately protected by the undertaking (Morning Star Co-operative Society Ltd v Express Newspapers [1979] FSR 113)? • The balance of convenience • maintenance of the status quo • merits of the parties’ cases (Series 5 Software v Clarke [1996] 1 All ER 853)
Exceptions to American Cyanamid • ss219-220, s221Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act • Final disposal of dispute (NWL Ltd v Woods [1979] 1 WLR 1294) • Justification defence (Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269) • s12 Human Rights Act 1998 (Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] 3 WLR 918 ) • no arguable defence (Official Custodian for Charities v Mackey [1985] Ch 168) • mandatory interim injunctions - Zockoll Group Ltd v Mercury Communications Ltd [1998] FSR 354.
Bars and defences • Delay or acquiescence (Bunn v British Broadcasting Corporation [1998] 3 All ER 552) • exceptional hardship • Inequitable behaviour by the applicant • No practical purpose (G v Harrow London Borough Council (2004) Lawtel 20th January 2004) • Personal services (Warren v Mendy [1989] 1 WLR 853)