Injunctions

Classification of injunctions
 Injunctions are discretionary remedy of the court - Holmes v Millage [1893]
 A legal or equitable right must be compromised - Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory
Service [1979] 2B 276 (her legal right triumphed his)
 The court is mindful of maxims - prior granting an injunction the court will ensure that
each of the maxims have been complied with/satisfied
 If damages are not a adequate remedy then an injunction cannot be granted -
although the court may consider if it is unfair to constrain someone to damages as
their primary remedy
 Injunctions operate in personam - Iveson v Harris (1802)
 Functional classifications:
1. Prohibitory injunctions - restrains the performance/continuance of a specified
act
2. Mandatory injunctions - court orders the performance of a specific act
 Temporal classifications:
1. Perpetual injunctions - for an indefinite period - exclusively granted at the end
of an action
2. Interlocutory injunction - granted at the preliminary stage of action and until
such time as the action ceases or circumstances are re-evaluated - granted to
preserve the status quo pending a full determination - is temporary in nature
3. Interim injunctions - granted to restrain a potential injustice pending trial -
usually obtained ex parte
4. Quia timet injunction - gran ted when a action hasn't happened yet but is
extremely likely to occur and the injury will be serious
Prevents the apprehended risk of damage from occurring - applicant just be
able to demonstrate a proven substantial risk of danger - Szabo v ESAT
Digifane Ltd [1998] 2 ILRM 102

Factors applying to the granting of injunctions

 There must be proof that the party seeking an injunction would not be adequate
compensated by the award of damages (this is in its very essence the reason
injunctions came to be)
 Assessing damages need only be difficult not impossible to suffice damages being
an inadequate remedy - Curust Financial Services Ltd v Loewe Lack [1994] 1 IR 450

Interlocutory injunctions
 Freezes the state of both parties - to stop the applicant from suffering irreparable
damage
 Criteria for granting the courts must apply the test established in American Cyanamid
v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396:
1. There must be a serious question to be tried
2. Consideration must be given to the balance of convenience
3. The adequacy of damages
Approved in Ire in Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry and Energy [1984] ILRM 45
 Exceptions to the Campus Oil test:
1. Where there is no arguable defence - Irish Shell v Elm Motors [1984] IR 200
2. Where defamation and the freedom of expression are at issue - Connolly v
RTE [1991] 2 IR 446
3. Where the case is unlikely to come to a final trial - particularly true where the
granting if the interlocutory injunction will destroy the need for a full case -
Cayne v Global Network Resources plc [1984] 1 ALL ER 225
 4. Dealing with the state - there are no special rules for seeking injunctions
against the state as it can't be impossible to injunct the state - Crotty v An
Taoiseach [1987] IR 713
5. Injunction relating to labour relations - s.19 Industrial Relations Act 1990
6. Injunctions to restrain presentation of a petition to wind up a company - courts
can restrain proceedings which are an abuse of process - Trucks and
Machinery Ltd v Marubeni Komatsu Ltd [1996] IR 12

Mandatory injunctions
 Mandatory injunctions compel a person to perform a specific action
 2 types:
1. Restorative - granted to force a party to put right a consequence of their
action
2. Enforcing - requires the performance of a positive obligation
 The court will require the plaintiff to show a strong probability of success - Redland
Bricks v Morris [1970] AC 652
 The court must be of the opinion that it will transpire that the granting of relief was the
correct choice - Shepherd Homes v Sandham [1971] Ch 340

Quia timet injunctions

 Operates to prevent an anticipated infringement of a plaintiff's rights
 Plaintiff is required to prove:
1. Apprehensions of injury
2. Proof of actual and real danger
3. Strong probability amounting to moral certainty
AG (Boswell) v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital Board [1904] 1 IR 161
 The court must balance the magnitude of the apprehended wrong against the
likelihood of its occurrence - Ryanair Ltd v Aer Rianta (unreported High Court 25-1-
2001)
 There are specific circumstances in which such an injunction will be granted:
1. To restrain a breach of contract - the relief will be granted as a matter of
course - Doherty v Alman (1878) 3 App Cps 709
2. To restrain the commission of a tort - commonly sought for trespass and
nuisance
3. To restrain a breach of constitutional rights
4. Contracts for personal services - generally reluctant but willing in certain
circumstances - Keane v Irish Amateur Swimming Association Ltd
( unreported High Court 6-8-3002)
5. To protect public rights - will be granted to restrain the commission of acts
that are detrimental to the public at large - Dunne v Dun Laoghaire -
Rathdown County Council [2003] ILRM 147

Mareva injunctions
 Operates in personam preventing a respondent form removing assets from a
jurisdiction or dissipating assets in order to defeat a judgement against them -
Mareva Compania Naviera SA V International Bulk Carriers SA [1979] 2
 Granted in advance of the substantive trial of action or/also after judgement
 Usually interlocutory in nature
 The granting of such an injunction does not give the applicant proprietary rights over
the assets
 This injunction will not improve the position of a party who knows that the company is
to be wound up and wished to protect their assets to the exclusion of other creditors
 The test for granting:
1. Plaintiff must have a subsisting cause of action against the defendant
 2. Plaintiff must have a good arguable case
3. Defendant must have the assets
4. There must be a real risk that the defendant will dispose of those assets
before the applicant can enforce their judgement in order to avoid judgement
TSB v Murhill
 The Brussels convention - applied in Ireland in Jurisdiction of Courts and
Enforcement of Judgement Act 1998 s.13(1) which provided courts with the power to
grant a provisional/protective measure prior the commencement of proceedings in
another state (EU attempt at cooperation in regard to the dissipation of assets)
 The World-Wide Mareva (WFO) effects those assets outside of the Brussels
convention (outside the EU)
 The proof required for Mareva injunctions:
1. Plaintiff has to make a full/frank disclosure of all the facts to their knowledge
2. Plaintiff has to give the particulars of their claim
3. Should refer to any counter-claim/grounds of defence the defendant may
raise
4. Should advise the court of any argument they expect will be advanced by the
defendant
5. Set out grounds for believing assets exist along with the location of said
assets
6. Set out their grounds for believing that those assets will be wither dissipated
or removed from the jurisdiction
Third Chandris Shipping Corporation v Unimarine SA [1979] QB 645
 Within jurisdiction the injunction will bind any 3rd parties who had notice - Bobonoft
International Co SA v Bassatne [1990] Ch13
 The court must consider all the circumstances of the case - Bennett Enterprises v
Lipton [1999] 2 IR 221

Anton Pillar Injunction

 Developed as a means of dealing with cases where there is a serious risk that the
defendant may destroy/dispose of prejudicial material in their possession which may
be of vital importance to the plaintiff to establish their claim at trial
 Are a mandatory form of injunction
 Requires the defendant to consent to the plaintiff (and their solicitor) entering their
premise to inspect and if necessary take any documents/assets specified in the order
- ColumbiaPictures Incorporated v Robinson [1987]
 Anton pillar injunction is the civil proceedings version of a search warrant
 The court must satisfy 4 conditions:
1. Extremely strong prima facie case
2. Damage (potential or actual)must be served for the applicant
3. Have clear evidence that the defendant has incriminating documents/assets
and a real possibility of their destruction before an inter partes application can
be made
4. Establish that the inspection will do no real harm to the defendant
Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
 The applicant must know what they’re looking for not be going looking for something

Bayer injunction
 Restrain the defendant from leaving a jurisdiction
 Court will only grant once they are satisfied that the defendant intends to leave the
jurisdiction for the sole purpose of defeating a Mareva or Anton Pillar order granted
against them - Bayer v AG Winter [1986] 1 WLR 497
 Required criteria:
 1. Court must be satisfied that there is a probable cause for believing the
defendant intends to flea to frustrate the administration of justice
2. Jurisdiction shouldn’ be exercised for punitive reason
3. An order shouldnt be granted where a less restrictive remedy would suffice
4. Injunction should be for the shortest possible time period
5. Proper and effective administration of justice should out balance the
defendant's constitutional right to travel
6. Granting of such an injunction shouldnt be futile
O’Neill v O’Keefe [2002] 2 IR 1