INJUNCTION

Redland Bricks v Morris [1969] – Leading case – read the judgement of Lord Upjohn
The court did not grant mandatory injunction because although there was a strong
probability of grave damage to the respondent’s land in the future (quia timet) and
that damages were not be a sufficient remedy in the circumstances, it was factor to be
taken into account that the appellants had not behaved unreasonably but only wrongly
and since the mandatory injunction imposed upon the appellants an absolute,
unqualified obligation to restore support (to the land), without giving them any
indication of what work was to be done, it offended a basic principle in the grant of
equitable relief of this nature that accordingly, it would be discharged.

Cause of action
Day v Brownrigg (1878) 10 Ch. D 294 – The P sought an injunction to prevent his
neighbour from giving his house the same name as his. He was unsuccessful because
there was no cause of action upon which to found his remedy. Ps alleged that their
house that had been called Ashford Lodge for 60 years and the joining house
belonging to the D which was called Ashford Villas, the D altered its name to
Ashford Lodge and the P alleged that it caused them great inconvenience and
annoyance and materially diminished the value of their property and claimed an
injunction to restrain the D from continuing to use the name of their house. The HC
held for the P and stated that a man has a legal right to the exclusive use of any name
he choses to affix to any part of his property. On appeal, the judge said such a right is
not known in the law and there has never been decided that there is such a right to
property.

Paton v Trustees of British Pregnancy Advisors Service [1979] – The wife (2nd D)
obtained a medical certificate entitling her to a lawful abortion. On application by the
husband (the P) seeking an injunction to restrain the wife and organization (1 st D)
from causing or committing an abortion to be carried out upon the wife without the
husband’s consent. The court held, inter alia, that it would never exercise jurisdiction
 to control personal relationships in marriages and in the absence of the right to be
consulted under the Abortion Act, the husband had no right enforceable in law or
equity from preventing his wife from having an abortion or to stop the doctors from
carrying out an abortion which was lawful under the Act.

Damages Inadequate

Nature of the injury

Shelfer v City of London Lighting Co. [1895] 1 Ch 287 – Leading example – Speaks of Lord
Cairn’s Act of 1858 conferring upon courts of equity a jurisdiction to award damages instead
of an injunction has not altered the settled principles upon which upon which those courts
interfered by way of injunction. The factors taken into account include:
(1) nature of the injury
(2) whether the injury complained of is of a continuing nature which cannot be repaired by
expenditure
(3) The ability of the D to pay
(4) possibility of repetition of the acts complained of

The court was of the opinion in this case that the D at the day the action was brought, created
a continuing nuisance by means of vibration noise and steam which were produced by
working their plan and machinery whereby not only annoyance, inconvenience and personal
discomfort were occasioned by the P, his wife and daughter who were actually made ill. The
P’s building had cracks and the continuous vibrations which arose were constantly increasing
and aggravating those cracks. The court held on appeal by the P that there was nothing to
justify the court in refusing to aid by injunction, the legal rights which had been established.
Injunction granted.

Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd p1959] 2 QB 384 – This case involved trespass to a strip
of land owned by the P at the rear f his premises on which the D had entered and constructed
a sewer for the discharge of effluent. The P claimed damages and an injunction to restrain the
discharge of the effluent through the sewer. He swore on affidavit that he has never had any
conversation with the Ds about the matter. The County court found that in fact he had and
that the P had orally informed the D that he had no objection to the construction of the sewer.
The judge awarded him 20shillings for the trespass and refused to grant the injunction. He
appealed and the COA dismissed the appeal, inter alia, on the grounds of acquiescence, the
wrong done in the circumstances was trivial and he did not only mislead the Ds but attempted
to mislead the court. On the facts, he did not suffer any damage

Argyll v Argyll [1967] – the injunction was granted based on the confidential relationship or
spousal privilege which exist btw married couples. The court noted (basis for injunction) that
confidential communications btw husband and wife are within the scope of the court’s
protection against breach of confidence. The wife’s own immorality does not nullify the right
to protection against breach of confidence relating to past events prior to the breakdown of
the marriage.

A defendant cannot be restrained from doing an inherently lawful act merely because he acts
deliberately and maliciously and to the detriment of the P. But malice or spite will influence
the court in determining whether or not to grant an injunction.

Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316 – The court held that the following did not constitute a
legal nuisance: The giving of music lessons by a teacher of music extended over 17hrs a
week in a house separated from the P’s adjoining house by a party wall, there also being from
time to time practicing on the piano, violin playing and singing and occasional music party
and frequent practicing on the violin cello up to 11pm at night. However an injunction was
granted to restrain the P in the adjoining house from causing or committing any sounds or
 noises in his house to vex the occupier (D). The court was satisfied that he had been making
noises on music instruments and otherwise maliciously for the purpose of annoying the D.

Daglish v Jarvie – Where the P obtained an ex parte injunction, on facts stated in the bill of
complaint but other facts came out in the D’s answer raising a question of law on which the
right of the P depended, the omission to do so was of itself sufficient grounds for dissolving
the injunction.

Kennaway v Thompson [1981] - P owned land next to a man-made lake on which a motor boat
racing club had organized and carried on racing and water-skiing activities since the early 1960s.
The P built her house in 1969 and went into occupation in 1972. From 1969, there was a
considerable increase in club activities. In 1977, there were race meetings almost nearly
weekend. The cause of action was nuisance and she went to the court to get an injunction. On
appeal, the court held she was successful and the court held that it was bound by the principles
set out in Shelfer that in cases of continuing actual nuisance, the jurisdiction to award damages
ought only to be exercised under very exceptional circumstances, and the public interest in
continuing the activity, constituted the nuisance, did not prevail over the private interest in
obtaining an injunction.

Whether Injunction will be Ineffective

Dellareed Ltd v Delkin Development [1988] FSR 329 – The court held that in an action for
the infringement of a patent, that the Ps did not lose their claim for an injunction by virtue of
the delay of 7months during which they gave the Ds no encouragement to believe that they
did not object.

Fullwood v Fullwood (1878) 9 Ch D 176 – The court ordered an injunction restraining the D
from representing that the business carried on by him was the same as that carried on by the
P. The D objected that the P had known from btw 2-3yrs, before issuing his writ. The court
held that the delay was no bar to the action.
Read – Article - in the civil justice quarterly 2004, 23rd April, pgs 133-151
"Whither American Cyanamid?: Interim Injunction in the 21st century - Author Andrew Keay.