Understanding Injunctions and Jurisdiction to Grant in Legal Proceedings
Injunctions in legal proceedings can be mandatory or prohibitory, with final or interim orders available. The jurisdiction to grant injunctions is outlined in the law, specifying the conditions under which they can be granted. The procedure for seeking injunctions is provided along with considerations regarding notice requirements. Additional procedural issues, such as certificates of urgency and practice outside work hours, are also covered in the content.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
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 or interlocutory during proceedings
Jurisdiction to Grant s23(5) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Chap 4:01: an inunction granted where just and convenient and either unconditionally or upon such terms and conditions as are just CPR 17.1 injunctions permissible with a menu of possible orders CPR 17.1 (3)- but note: the listing is not exhaustive so you can get what you need Judicial Review Act- section 8 gives an express power to grant
Procedure CPR 17 sets out procedure Can be made at any time 17.2 (1) If made before claim: must be necessary to do so Must give an undertaking to issue a claim: 17.2 (3)
With or without notice Very high threshold to justify ex parte National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd. v Olint Corporation Ltd [2009] I WLR 1405 .Lord application of which no notice has been given unless either giving notice would enable the defendant to take steps to defeat the purpose of the injunction (as in the case of a Mareva or Anton Pillar order) or there has been literally no time to give notice before the injunction is required to prevent the threatened wrongful act. Hoffman at [13] ..a judge should not entertain an
More procedural issues Certificate of urgency. No rule requiring this, but has emerged in practice. You could it seems simply write to the Registrar Similarly, if you are defending, you can write to the registrar to advise of a pending dispute which may come and to advise that counsel had been retained and is available at short notice to attend on an opposed ex parte basis
Practice outside work hours Call Registrar: Madam Registrar Bansie- Sookhai - 389-7827 Find out who is duty Registrar and Judge and advise when you will be ready No filing: you lodge papers with Registrar who takes into custody You give an undertaking to file next working day Have electronic copy of order in email or flash drive in case judge modifies Have Court of Appeal on stand by
Other matters: Undertaking in damages Draft order Enough copies to put a penal clause and for service Need penal clause if you need to enforce contempt proceedings
serious issue to be tried Adequacy of damages Is the defendant adequately protected by the undertaking American Cyanamid criteria The balance of convenience maintenance of the status quo merits of the parties cases (Series 5 Software v Clarke [1996] 1 All ER 853)
Jetpak/East Coast: Jetpak v BWIA 55 WIR 362: I would consider the rule that an injunction ought never to be granted if damages can provide an adequate remedy to be one which is too narrow to be applicable in every case. It is more obviously so if by damages is meant the damages which are legally recoverable in the action, and if by adequate is meant quantifiable East Coast Drilling 58 WIR 351: A more modern approach, which was adopted in Jet Pak Services Ltd v BWIA International Airways Ltd (1998) 55 WIR 362, is to pose the question: where does the greater risk of injustice lie, in granting or in refusing the injunction? If I may venture respectfully to suggest it, one criticism of this phrasing is that it does not make it clear that one has to assess and compare not only the quantum of the risk that injustice may occur, but also the extent of the injustice that may occur. The risk of injustice may be greater if an injunction is granted when the case for the plaintiff is not a strong one, but the consequences of refusing the injunction in such a case may be far more disastrous for the plaintiff than the consequences to the defendant of wrongly granting it.
Olint test- [17] In practice, however, it is often hard to tell whether either damages or the cross-undertaking will be an adequate remedy and the court has to engage in trying to predict whether granting or withholding an injunction is more or less likely to cause irremediable prejudice (and to what extent) if it turns out that the injunction should not have been granted or withheld, as the case may be. The basic principle is that the court should take whatever course seems likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice to one party or the other.
Appeal of injunction Novartis test [2014] 1 WLR 1264 (1)The court must be satisfied that the appeal has a real prospect of success. (2)(2) If so, not usually be useful to attempt to form a view as to how much stronger the prospects of appeal are, or to attempt to give weight to that view in assessing the balance of convenience. (3)t does not follow automatically from the fact that an interim injunction has or would have been granted pre-trial that an injunction pending appeal should be granted.
Novartis continued 4. must assess all the relevant circumstances following judgment, including the period of time before any appeal is likely to be heard and the balance of hardship to each party if an injunction is refused or granted. 5. not limited to the case where its refusal would render an appeal nugatory. Such a case merely represents the extreme end of a spectrum of possible factual situations in which the injustice to one side is balanced against the injustice to the other. 6. As in the case of the stay of a permanent injunction which would otherwise be granted to a successful claimant, the court should endeavour to arrange matters so that the Court of Appeal is best able to do justice between the parties once the appeal has been heard.
Exceptions to American Cyanamid Final disposal of dispute no arguable defence Defamation - (Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269) (now overruled domestically see CA in Rajkumar mandatory interim injunctions higher threshold
Special cases State Liablity and Proceedings no injunctions against State Public law - judicial review is not a civil proceeding for the purpose of the State Liability and Proceedings Act. JR Act gives express power Constitutional motions conservatory orders- established in Bansraj, now expanded it seems.
Bars and defences Delay or acquiescence exceptional hardship Inequitable behaviour by the applicant No practical purpose Personal services employment cases
Order must be precise forbidden from committing the act whether by himself or by instructing or encouraging or permitting any other person whether acting on his own or through his servants and/or agent, heirs or assigns, or howsoever otherwise Until trial or further order.. - always use a clear cut off from when injunction will lapse
Penal in nature Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, 3rd Ed., 2005 states (at 12- 48) that the rules governing the construction of undertakings and orders are analogous to those which govern the interpretation of penal statutes. Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 2008 (5th Ed): It is a principle of legal policy that a person should not be penalised except under clear law...The court...should strive to avoid adopting a construction which penalises a person where the legislator s intention to do so is doubtful .
Penal Clause CPR 53.3 NOTICE: If you fail to comply with the terms of this order you will be in contempt of court and may be liable to be imprisoned or to have your assets confiscated. , or in the case of an order served on a body corporate in the following terms: NOTICE: If you fail to comply with the terms of this order you will be in contempt of court and may be liable to have your assets confiscated. ;
