Researched & Compiled by Leslie F.

Cole- Showers
2022

INJUNCTIONS
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Law 6 th edition, an Injunction is defined as a remedy in the
form of a Court order addressed to a particular person that either prohibits him from doing or
continuing to do certain act (Prohibitory Injunction) or orders him to carry out a certain act
(Mandatory Injunction). A person who fails to abide by the terms of an Injunction may be guilty of
contempt of Court.

In one old case (Martin v Nutkin {1724}) for example, an injunction was granted in order to
stop a church from ringing its bell as early as 5am.

Injunctions generally include Prohibitory, Mandatory, Perpetual, Interlocutory, and Interim. For
the purpose of clarity and simplicity, the above listed can be collapsed into two main categories.
These are:

 Perpetual
 Interlocutory

These two serve as an umbrella for the remainder. In other words, Prohibitory, Mandatory, and
Interim Injunctions respectively are conceived in the womb of Perpetual and Interlocutory
Injunctions.

Briefly, Prohibitory Injunction forbids the commission or continuance of a wrongful act- for
example a trespasser can be prohibited from continuing same. In Jaggard v Sawyer (1995), the
Injunctions sought aimed to prevent the defendants from trespassing on a stretch of road
belonging to the claimant and to prevent the defendant from building a house on their land, in
breach of restrictive covenants that prevented further development of the land. Similar facts also
exist in Tulk v Moxhay (1848).

Mandatory Injunctions are issued by the Court requiring the defendant to do something positive-
to remove a building which has been erected wrongfully on a plaintiff’s land, for example. In the
case of Sky Petroleum Ltd v VIP Petroleum Ltd (1974), a Mandatory Injunction was issued to the
defendant restraining it from withholding supplies of petrol. However, if the Mandatory Injunction
imposition is one that will cause hardship on the defendant, the Court will be reluctant to grant.
Such was the case in Gravesham Borough Council v British Railways Board (1978), in which the
defendant planned to curtail the services of its ferry. It was held that… even if there had been a
Mandatory Injunction, it would not be appropriate because of enforcement difficulties and
financial hardship to the defendant.

On the other hand, an Interim Injunction lasts for seven days a time, with room for renewal as
long as the matter is still alive in Court.
 Researched & Compiled by Leslie F. Cole- Showers
2022
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION

This Injunction seeks to protect the most convenient method of preserving the status quo while
rights are established in Court. The object of an Interlocutory Injunction is to prevent a litigant
who must necessarily suffer the law’s delay, from losing by that delay the fruit of his litigation.

In Woodford v Smith (1970), the Court granted an Interlocutory Injunction to restrain a residents’
association from breaking its contract by holding a meeting without the claimant members.

Pursuant to Rochdale Borough Council v Anders (1988), the grant of an Interlocutory Injunction is
a very important matter as a defendant can be sent to prison for breach.

The standout case for Interlocutory Injunction is American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd (1975).
This case sets out three criteria namely:

i. Whether there is a serious issue to be tried: there is a prospect of serious issue to

be tried. In the case of Att- Gen v Barker (1990), it was said that the claimant must show
that there is serious question to be tried, which means that he must have a good
arguable case.

ii. Balance of Convenience: this can also be referred to as ‘balance of the risk of doing an
injustice’. This is portrayed in the case of Fellowes & Son v Fisher (1975), where it was
felt that the relative strength of the parties must be a factor in assessing the balance of
convenience and that sometimes the Court could not do justice without considering the
merits.

In Smith v Inner London Education Authority (1978), an Interlocutory Injunction was

sought to restrain an alleged breach of statutory duty. It was said that where the
defendant is a public body, the balance of convenience must be looked at more widely;
the Court must consider the interests of the general public to whom the duty is owed.

The public interest was also a relevant consideration in Express Newspapers Ltd v Keys
(1980), where an Interlocutory Injunction was granted to restrain a trade union from
unlawfully inducing a breach of contract by the claimant’s employees, by persuading
them to support a political strike. If the injunction was refused, the employer would
suffer unquantifiable damage, whereas if it was granted, the union would suffer no harm
save political embarrassment. It was in the interest of the members of the union and of
the public that the injunction be granted. If the balance of convenience does not clearly
favour either party, then, as we have seen, the deciding factor will be the preservation of
the status quo, pursuant to Lewis v Heffer (1978).

iii. Other Special Factors: in Cyanamid, Lord Diplock concluded his exposition of the
guiding principles by saying that “other special factors” may have to be considered in
individual cases. A question whether these special factors are merely an aspect of the
 Researched & Compiled by Leslie F. Cole- Showers
2022
balance of convenience, or whether they justify a departure from the principles laid in
Cyanamid and a return to the previous practice of requiring a prima facie case.

In Hubbard v Pitt (1975), the fact was such that certain members of the public
disapproved of the extensive development which had taken place in Islington, and they
picket a leading firm of estate agents which had acted in connection with many
developments in the area. The pickets held placards and distributed leaflets to passers-
by, thus impeding access to the premises, and deterring potential clients. The estate
agents obtained an injunction to restrain them and this was upheld by the majority of
the Court of Appeal.

There was a serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience favoured the
grant. Damages could not compensate the claimants for loss of business, even if the
defendants could pay, whereas the injunction would not prevent a legitimate campaign.
The majority held that there were no circumstances in which “special factors’ would
take a case out of the general rule that no prima facie case was required. But Lord
Denning again held that “special factors” took the case out of the Cyanamid rules. In his
view, a prima facie case was required. The appeal should be allowed because the
Injunction would interfere with free speech and the right to demonstrate and protest.

PERPETUAL INJUNCTION

A perpetual (or final) injunction can only be granted after the court has been able to adjudicate
upon the matter. A perpetual injunction is so called because it is granted at the final
determination of the parties’ rights and not because it will necessarily operate forever. For
instance, a perpetual injunction may be granted so as to continue only during the currency of a
lease. A perpetual injunction is granted only at the instance of a person who has a right (including
a statutory right) which is justiciable before the court. A party will not have standing to bring a
claim if he does not have “some property, right, or interest, in the subject matter of his
complaint”. In Day v Brownrigg (1878) the court refused to grant an injunction to prevent the
defendant from calling his house by the same name as the claimant’s house, although the parties
lived next door to each other and the name had been used by the claimant for 60 years; there is
no legal or equitable right to the exclusive use of the name of a private residence:

“You must have in our law injury as well as damage.

If a man erects a wall on his own property and thereby

destroys the view from the house of the Plaintiff he may

damage him to an enormous extent. He may destroy

three-fourths of the value of the house, but still, if he

has the right to erect the wall, the mere fact of thereby
 Researched & Compiled by Leslie F. Cole- Showers
2022
causing damage to the Plaintiff does not give the Plaintiff a right of action.”