Injunctions

Question 1

Perpetual Injunctions

What two typologies can perpetual injunctions fall under?

Answer 1

PIs can be (i) quia timet or non-quia timet (ii) mandatory or prohibitory. Perpetual = may last forever.

Question 2

Perpetual Injunctions - Quia Timet Injunction

What is a QTI?

Answer 2

QTI: QTIs are injunctions granted to restrain an anticipated violation of P’s rights
The principles governing QT and non-QT injunctions appear the same, however, the standard of proof is different: actual violation is on the balance of probs, anticipated is arguably a higher standard.

Question 3

Perpetual Injunctions - QTI - Standard of Proof

AG v Manchester [1893]

Answer 3

A ‘strong case of probability’ the apprehended mischief will arise.

Question 4

Perpetual Injunctions - QTI - Standard of Proof

AG v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital [1904]

Answer 4

• P sought injunction to stop D building smallpox hospital. Refused: no real danger was proved.
• Standard: “a strong probability, almost amounting to a moral certainty”

Question 5

Perpetual Injunctions - QTI - Standard of Proof

Independent Newspapers v Irish Press [1932]

Answer 5

• P claimed it owned the property and goodwill in the name ‘evening telegraph’. Rejected: failed to show damage would occur. Must show a ‘reasonable probability’ what’s threatened will cause damage

Question 6

Perpetual Injunctions - QTI - Standard of Proof

Szabo v Esat Digiphone Ltd [1998]

Answer 6

• P sought injunction to stop D erecting mobile phone station beside their school. Held you must show a “substantial risk of danger” and held no such danger existed here i.e. to the children prior to the case.
• Held saw no diff in principles on interloc QTs + other interloc inj: just harder to show risk of future injury

Question 7

Perpetual Injunctions - QTI - Standard of Proof

Ryanair v Aer Rianta [2001]:

Answer 7

Held must be proven substantial risk of injury for QT injunction.
All of these should be read in light of Hardiman J in SC in

Question 8

Perpetual Injunctions - QTI - Standard of Proof

Boliden Tara Mines [2010]:

Answer 8

In Ireland, no form of words other than ‘proof on the balance of prob’ should be
used. There’s only 2 standards of proof.

Question 9

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction -

What is the general approach of the courts to mandatory perpetual injunctions?

Answer 9

A perpetual injunction, QT or non-QT, can be prohibitory or mandatory. Governed by same principles, but less likely to grant mandatory as (1) more onerous + (2) harder to frame to allow D know his precise obligs
If actual/anticipated violation of a right shown, prima facie entitled to injunction. But, it’s a discr remedy:
Pride of Derby v British Celanese [1953]: Eversheds MR: ‘If P is prima facie entitled to an injunction, he will be deprived of that remedy only if special circumstances exist (e.g. if damages are adequate remedy).

Question 10

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895] SHELFER PRINCIPLES

Answer 10

P must prove he wouldn’t be compensated adequately for an actual/anticipated violation by damages.
- D did lighting works causing damage to pub nearby causing P (had pub under lease) annoyance.
- Held should be confined to remedy in damages. Court of Appeal overturned. PRINCIPLES:
(a) If the injury to the P’s legal rights is small,
(b) And is one which is capable of being estimated in money,
(c) And is one which can be adequately compensated by a small money payment,
(d) And the case is one in which it’d be oppressive to the D to grant an injunction;
Then damages in substitution for an injunction may be given.
- But stressed just bc D is able + willing to pay damages isn’t a factor to persuade courts to deny an inj

Question 11

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Express Newspapers v Keys [1980]

Answer 11

• P sought inj restraining TUs from inducing members to breach their contracts w P. Held just bc the TUs could pay damages doesn’t mean its adequate and would allow them avoid liability.

Question 12

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Kennaway v Thompson [1981] UK

Answer 12

• P got inj to stop a nuisance of power-boating on lake near home. LJ felt the Shelfer principles were binding + especially in cases involving a continuous nuisance, such as the one here.

Question 13

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Patterson v Murphy [1978]

Answer 13

• P sought injunction restraining D from carrying out quarrying activities on land beside their house
• HC satisfied a serious nuisance had been established + would continue unless restrained:
  (1) When an infringement of P’s right and a threatened further infringement to a material extent have been established, P is prima facie entitled to an injunction. Only deprived in exceptional circs.
  (2) Shelfer principles
  (3) P’s conduct may disentitle him to an injunction. D’s may disentitle him seeking substitution.
  (4) The mere fact a wrongdoer is willing to pay for the injury is not a ground for substituting damages

Question 14

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Curust Financial Services v Loewe-Lack [1994

Answer 14

Mere difficulty vs impossibility in calculating damages: damages not an adequate remedy?
Finlay CJ held difficulty, as opposed to impossibility, shouldn’t be a ground for characterising awarding damages as an inadequate remedy

Question 15

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Sheridan v Louis Fitzgerald Group [2006

Answer 15

Finlay CJ’s comments in Curust Financial Services were relied on here:

• P (caterer) entered lease w D to provide food in 2 pubs. D denied existence of lease. P sought mandatory interlocutory inj compelling D to let him cater pending trial. Rejected: damages adequate
• Argued damages inadeq due to potential loss in business bc of less proficient caterer working til trial
• Rejected: Curust held regard can be had to loss up to date damages assessed + probable loss that’d occur after. P would be entitled to damages to compensate for any losses that’d accrue during any future period.

Question 16

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Sheridan v Louis Fitzgerald Group [2006

Answer 16

Finlay CJ’s comments in Curust Financial Services were relied on here:

• P (caterer) entered lease w D to provide food in 2 pubs. D denied existence of lease. P sought mandatory interlocutory inj compelling D to let him cater pending trial. Rejected: damages adequate
• Argued damages inadeq due to potential loss in business bc of less proficient caterer working til trial
• Rejected: Curust held regard can be had to loss up to date damages assessed + probable loss that’d occur after. P would be entitled to damages to compensate for any losses that’d accrue during any future period.

Question 17

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Damages Would be an Adequate Remedy

Lynch v HSE [2010

Answer 17

• P (dentist) sought inj restraining D capping the budget for dental services scheme and claimed would go out of business pending the trial so damages inadeq. Rejected: held losses could still be calculated and P
  hadn’t established they were likely to sustain loss incapable of being adeq remedied by damages

Question 18

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Engaged or is Threatening to Engage in Unfair/Unreasonable Conduct

Argyll v Argyll [1967]:

Answer 18

Maxim 4: He who comes to Equity must come with clean hands
P’s adultery didn’t prevent her getting an injunction restraining her former husband to breach confidences. The cleanliness must be judged in relation to the relief sought.

Question 19

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Engaged or is Threatening to Engage in Unfair/Unreasonable Conduct

Curust Financial Services v Loewe-Lack [1994]

Answer 19

• P sole distributor of D’s rust primer in Irl+UK. Fell out, ended. P contracted w 3rd party for supply.
• P sold under D’s name. P sought inj to stop D suppling to another distributor.
• D claimed 3rd party supply meant dirty hands, but Finlay CJ said it needs to be some moral turpitude
  and doesn’t necessarily mean breach of contract alone. Granted injunction.

Question 20

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Engaged or is Threatening to Engage in Unfair/Unreasonable Conduct

Meridian Comm v Eircell [2001]:

Answer 20

If both parties are guilty of misconduct, the court may grant an injunction:
SC held where misconduct by both, it balances out. Injunction granted.

Question 21

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Engaged or is Threatening to Engage in Unfair/Unreasonable Conduct

Chappel v Times Newspapers [1975]

Answer 21

Maxim 3: He who seeks Equity must do Equity
- P members of TU seeking inj to stop D from ending their employment contracts. Refused: P failed to show they intended to abide by their contracts & give undertakings not to engage in disruptive practice

Question 22

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Engaged or is Threatening to Engage in Unfair/Unreasonable Conduct

Eircell v Bernstoff [2000]:

Answer 22

D’s conduct may be a factor – reprehensible here, but P’s was reasonable.

Question 23

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Delayed in Seeking injunctive Relief - Laches

What is laches?

Answer 23

Unreasonable delay that makes it unjust to grant an inj: must be such that to grant it would now oppress D.

Question 24

Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Delayed in Seeking injunctive Relief - Laches

Lennon v Ganly [1981

Answer 24

Ireland’s rugby team announced tour of South Africa at time of apartheid. Just before tour, P sought injunction to restrain it. Due to time bw announcement and application, refused.

Question 25

# Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Delayed in Seeking injunctive Relief - Laches Newport Football Club v Foorball Association of Wales [1995]:

Answer 25

Held delay of 2yrs seeking an interl inj not unreas bc of mitigating factors: seeking alt ways to resolve it. Shouldn’t be penalised for this.

Question 26

# Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Delayed in Seeking injunctive Relief - Acquiescence What is acquiescence?

Answer 26

It is an assent or lying by in relation to the acts of another and it must be unjust in all the circs to grant inj.

Question 27

# Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Delayed in Seeking injunctive Relief - Acquiescence Shaw v Applegate [1977]

Answer 27

- D bought property and covenanted not to use it as arcade, but did, 3 years later P sought injunction - Held to deprive owner of legal right on acquiescence, it’d have to be dishonest to seek to enforce it - Held P was confused if breach or not so deprived of claiming but only damages: goodwill+cost to D

Question 28

# Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Plaintiff Delayed in Seeking injunctive Relief - Acquiescence O’Hare v Dundalk Racing [2015]:

Answer 28

Injunction refused as delay in applying was prejudicial to 3rd party (7 years delay, wanted to pick up pitches again, new person there 7 years). However, he granted damages.

Question 29

# Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Granting an injunction Would Cause D or a Third Party Undue Hardship Bellew v Cement Ltd [1948]

Answer 29

- Sought inj to stop D quarrying. D argued it was sole producer of cement in Irl so public inconv to stop - SC refused: public interest is irrelevant in private law matters. Despite Bellew, there have been cases where the courts looked beyond the rights of the parties in the case

Question 30

# Perpetual Injunctions - Mandatory Perpetual injunction - Granting an injunction Would Cause D or a Third Party Undue Hardship Howard v Commissioner for Public Works [1992]:

Answer 30

HC refused inj to restrain development on interpretive centre in the Burren. Took into acc the impact on employment levels in the area it would have. Note: This was not restricted to private rights – Burren planning permission is in public sphere.

Question 31

# Interlocutory Injunctions What are the general features of the interlocutory injunction?

Answer 31

An interlocutory injunction preserves the status quo pending the trial of action. Campus Oil [1983]: ‘IJ is given where P complains of continuing act causing irreparable harm i.e. may not be possible to properly compensate by damages. Due to time that lapses before trial + to keep matters status quo’. • Granted ex parte so only granted in v urgent circumstances. • P must give undertaking as to damages (compensate D if he doesn’t succeed at trial).

Question 32

# Interlocutory Injunctions American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] UK Test

Answer 32

- Test: Is there a serious question to be tried? (i.e. P must prove claim isn’t frivolous/vexatious) - If serious q is raised, court asks: in whose favour does the balance of convenience lie? This involves adequacy of damages: (1) II granted if damages inadeq compensate P if succeeds at trial or (2) II can be refused if undertaking as to damages inadeq compensate D if he loses at the interlocutory stage but succeeds at trial.

Question 33

# Interlocutory Injunctions Campus Oil v Minister of Industry [1983] IRISH TEST

Answer 33

- Ministerial order requiring P (oil co) to buy set amount of petrol from State owned refinery. P said it breached EC law. Referred to ECJ but pending, D sought int inj to compel P to comply. - SC endorsed American Cyanamid and set out the Campus Oil Test - The court considers: (a) Has P raised a fair, bona fide question to be tried? (b) Are damages an adequate remedy? (c) If damages wouldn’t fully compensate either party, court can consider the balance of convenience

Question 34

# Interlocutory Injunctions Westman Holdings v McCormack [1992]

Answer 34

Campus Oil principles re-iterated - P sought inj to stop picketing. While could be quantified in cash, Ds were poor + TU had immunity so damages inadequate for P but P’s undertaking was adequate for the D so inj was granted.

Question 35

# Interlocutory Injunctions - particular features can make damages inadequate JRM Sports v FAI [2007]:

Answer 35

Held damages would not be an adequate remedy because of the important sporting considerations at issue that “cannot be converted into money”.

Question 36

# Interlocutory Injunctions - particular features can make damages inadequate McLoughlin v Setanta Insurance [2011]:

Answer 36

Damages never adequate if real risk of reputational damage.

Question 37

# Interlocutory Injunctions Clane Hospital v VHI [1998] Most recent Campus Oil confirmation NB

Answer 37

- IJ sought to stop D altering charges scheme for med treatments. HC said satisfied damages would be adequate and laid out sequence of consideration for the court: (a) Has the P raised a fair, substantial bona fide question for determination? (b) If P wins at trial, could he be adequately compensated by damages? (c) If D wins at trial, could he be adequately compensated by P’s undertaking as to damages? (d) If 1 or both parties raises real + substantial doubts as to adequacy, where does the BoC lie? (e) Are there any special factors that influence the discretion to grant?

Question 38

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Balance of Convenience and Adequacy of Damages; Separate or Together? Smithkline Beecham v Gentham [2003]

Answer 38

- Kelly J thought the adequacy of damages Q should be approached separately to the BoC Q. - Felt Westman did this (however this is not certain as Finlay appeared to make damages part of BoC)

Question 39

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Balance of Convenience and Adequacy of Damages; Separate or Together? Templeville Developments v Leopardstown Club [2003]

Answer 39

- P sought IJ to stop D building access ramp pending arbitration decision: would affect Ps parking rights - Granted IJ as p showed fair Q + damages inadequate for him, but not D (inadeq separate from BoC)

Question 40

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Balance of Convenience Private Research v Brosnan [1996]

Answer 40

- HC: the rule that courts should try maintain the status quo weighs in Ps favour, but, it’s not the only rule in considering the balance of conv + there’s no absolute rule the status quo should be maintained

Question 41

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Balance of Convenience Okunande v Minister for Justice [2012]

Answer 41

- Clarke J: In considering if damages adequate, must consider if II is granted, would P’s undertaking adequately compensate D? If not, II refused. - Also held an order that requires a person take some positive step (mandatory II) carries a greater risk of injustice than one that merely prohibits an action (prohibitory), thereby preserving the status quo.

Question 42

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injuncitons What general concerns are there re the test for MII's? What are the three predominant standards?

Answer 42

Issue: Should courts depart from the Campus Oil principles for mandatory interloc inj? CO was a MII. Three different standards: (1) the strong case, (2) the Campus Oil principle and (3) the risk of injustice Firstly, Campus Oil itself was a mandatory interlocutory injunction. So, originally thought it would apply

Question 43

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Strong Case Shepherd Homes v Sandham [1971] UK

Answer 43

- Megarry J: P’s case must be ‘unusually strong and clear’ to have a MII granted. - The court must feel a ‘high degree of assurance’ that at trial it’ll appear the MII was rightly granted

Question 44

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Strong Case Boyhan v Beef Tribunal [1992]

Answer 44

- P (United farmers’ association and members) sought MII to compel D to grant them full legal representation at the Tribunal. Refused: must show ‘strong and clear’ case + feel ‘degree of assurance’

Question 45

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Strong Case Boyle v An Post [1992]

Answer 45

- D shut payroll computer down after no. of employees suspended. P sought MII to pay wages. - Granted: Court satisfied ‘strong and clear’ case and satisfied Ps were bound to succeed at trial.

Question 46

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Strong Case Lingham v HSE [2006]

Answer 46

- HC granted MII restraining the D rom reassigning P from her current position. Damages inadequate. - Fennelly J: It’s well established that the test of a fair case to be tried is not sufficient to meet the first leg of the test for the grant of a MII. Must show ‘strong case that he’s likely to succeed at trial’

Question 47

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Strong Case Naujoks v National Inst of Bioprocessing [2006]

Answer 47

- Applied Campus Oil but then Lingam test of ‘strong case likely to succeed’. Odd.

Question 48

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Strong Case Bergin v Galway Clinic [2008]

Answer 48

- P (CEO) sought inj restraining his dismissal and compelling D to re-engage him pre-trial. - Clarke J explained the rationale behind requiring a ‘strong case’: the basis for the higher standard is that the substance of the relief is a mandatory order requiring the employer to keep him in employment - ‘he’s seeking to prevent an employer exercising a prima facie entitlement… I believe in order to see if the first step towards granting an order is met, its necessary P establish a strong case’

Question 49

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - Campus Oil (No Departure) Bula Ltd v Tara Mines [1987]

Answer 49

- HC accepted much of Megarry J’s judgment, but said he was reluctant to accept that the granting of a MII should be dependent on the strength of P’s case: in line with the Campus Oil principles.

Question 50

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - Campus Oil (No Departure) A&N Pharmacy v United Drugs [1996]

Answer 50

- Carroll J applied Campus Oil principles granting a MII compelling D to supply P w pharma products

Question 51

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - Campus Oil (No Departure) Sheehy v Ryan [2002]

Answer 51

- HC applied CO principles but said generally, courts reluctant to grant MIIs except in exceptional circs

Question 52

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - Campus Oil (No Departure) Cronin v Minister for Education [2004]

Answer 52

- Mum of autistic boy sought MII for D to provide special tuition for a specified number of hours - Granted: Held P had to do no more than show a bona fide issue to be determined. Rejected strong case

Question 53

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - Campus Oil (No Departure) AIB v Diamond [2012]

Answer 53

- Springboard injunction here: prevent employees using insider info from employer to own benefit. - Clarke J CO is so well established, impermissible to depart from. Reiterated in Okunande by Clarke.

Question 54

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - The Risk of Injustice Shelbourne Hotel v Torriam Hotel [2010]

Answer 54

- Diff view taken to minimise the risk of injustice by making the wrong decision at the interloc stage - Due to the conflicting cases, Kelly J followed Hoffman in Films Rover v Cannon where he said a court should take any course that’d carry the lower risk of injustice if it turns out to be the ‘wrong’ decision

Question 55

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Mandatory Interlocutory Injunctions - Conclusion What general conclusion can you make about the state of Irish Law in this area? Case setting out this general view?

Answer 55

Conclusion: The current position in Ireland appears to be that a P must prove he has a strong case and is likely to succeed at trial. This is more difficult to prove than a fair bona fide question to be tried. The higher threshold may be justified on the basis that a MII is more onerous on a D than a PII. Tola Capital Mgmt v Linders [2014] - Cregan J held where a mandatory order is sought, then P must establish that he’s a strong case that he’s likely to succeed at the trial (Lingam) and where it is a mand interlocutory in, whatever course that would carry the lower risk of injustice! (Shelbourne) SUMMARY: (1) If an interlocutory injunction is prohibitory, Campus Oil principles apply (2) If an interlocutory injunction is mandatory, the first limb of Campus Oil is replaced by Lingam.

Question 56

# Interlocutory Injunctions - Interlocutory QT Injunctions? Szabo v Esat Digiphone [1998]

Answer 56

- Geoghegan J, adopting Spry’s approach, held there’s no difference in the principles to be applied to a interlocutory quia timet injunction and any other interlocutory injunction. - If the IQTI is prohibitory, Campus Oil applies. If the IQTI is mandatory, Lingham v HSE applies. - Approved of in Ryanair v Aer Rianta (2001) and Garrahy v Bord nag Con (2002)

Question 57

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles What is the most slef explanatory departure?

Answer 57

(a) Parties agree the interlocutory hearing will constitute the trial of action

Question 58

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - There's no arguable defense to P's claim. Keating v Jervis Shopping Centre [1997]

Answer 58

Must be clear no arguable defence. Usually to restrain trespass. If Ps title indisputable, almost always issue II. - Owner of shop sought IJ restraining D from trespassing by operation of a tower crane in their air space - Held it’s clear a property owner whose title isn’t in issue is prima facie entitled to an IJ to restrain trespass. However, this principle is subject to fact that D may put forward evidence to establish he has a right to do what would otherwise be trespass.

Question 59

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain an Industrial Action These are governed by what sections of what statute?

Answer 59

Historically, the common law favoured employers. S.19 Industrial Relations Act 1990 seeks to redress the imbalance: • S.19(1): Where a secret ballot properly held + 1 weeks’ notice given, employer can’t apply for inj. This prevents an employer getting an ex parte ad interim injunction where conditions met. • S.19(2): Where secret ballot properly held + favours strike +TU gives notice, court shall not grant inj where D establishes a fair case that he was acting in furtherance of a trade dispute. If ballot is defective, this doesn’t apply and Campus Oil principles apply • S.19(3): Notice given to members by giving reas opp of reading it or making it reas accessible • S.19(5): Where 2+ secret ballots held, the last one is the important one.

Question 60

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain an Industrial Action G&T Crampton v Building & Allied TU [1998]

Answer 60

- P sought interloc inj to stop picketing. HC held ballot defective so Campus Oil applied. SC affirmed

Question 61

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain an Industrial Action Malincross v Building & Allied TU [2002]

Answer 61

- D union + members picketed employer’s former workplace but P had taken over. Sought inj to stop. - HC: Test is if there’s a bona fide dispute re whether conditions for s.19(2) were fulfilled? - Held there was such a dispute as the secret ballot authorised action against original employer only

Question 62

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Publication of Allegedly Defamatory Material What Constitutional provision is at issue?

Answer 62

Art 40.6.1.i: Constitution guarantees freedom of expression. Hard to get II to stop publication as (1) Courts reluctant to interfere with freedom of expression (2) variety of technical defences that can be plead.

Question 63

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Publication of Allegedly Defamatory Material Sinclair v Gogarty [1937]

Answer 63

- Only grant in clearest cases where any jury would clearly say the matter was libellous and if they didn’t, the court would set it aside as unreasonable. Book so defamatory the inj was granted.

Question 64

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Publication of Allegedly Defamatory Material Reynolds v Malocco [1999]

Answer 64

- Sought to restrain publication that said (i) he allowed drugs be sold in his club (ii) he’s gay - Granted: Must show there is ‘no doubt the words are defamatory’. They were here.

Question 65

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Publication of Allegedly Defamatory Material Quinlivan v O’Dea [2010]

Answer 65

- Reiterated that there must be no doubt that the words are defamatory. - Recognised importance of freedom of ex: warned a bald statement by D that he intends to plead justification is insufficient. Must be some evidence to suggest his plea has a chance of succeeding. - HC satisfied it was defamatory + no evidence to support plea, thus prima facie entitled to injunction - Not final though: court influenced by fact P would be unable to recover damages from D

Question 66

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Publication of Allegedly Defamatory Material Cogley v RTE [2005]

Answer 66

- Sought to restrain prime time’s expose on nursing home. P assistant director. Alleged defamation. - Test: ‘whether or not there is any reasonable basis on which D might succeed at trial’. - This ‘any reasonable basis’ endorses Molocco – must be evidence of potential to win. - HC also held ‘even if P satisfies the reasonable-basis test, the court still retains discretion to refuse’. - P failed to demonstrate no reasonable basis on which D may succeed at trial. Injunction refused.

Question 67

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Presentation of a Petition to Wind up a Company Truck and Machinery Sales v Komatsu [1996]

Answer 67

set out the principles - Keane J said the P co must establish a prima facie case that the presentation would constitute an abuse of process. A prima facie case is often established where the P shows evidence satisfying the court: (1) The petition is bound to fail or (2) There is a suitable alternative remedy

Question 68

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Interlocutory Injunction Sought to Restrain the Presentation of a Petition to Wind up a Company Cotton Box Design v Earls [2009],

Answer 68

Laffoy J granted an inj restraining petitions as she was satisfied the P was acting bona fide in disputing the debt and was a prospect of serious injustice if petition allowed

Question 69

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Where the Trial of Action is Unlikely General rule?

Answer 69

Campus Oil principles were stated on assumption the issue would be resolved at trial + so don’t involve a considering the merits of a case. So if decision at interlocutory stage would resolve dispute, won’t apply CO

Question 70

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Where the Trial of Action is Unlikely NWL Ltd v Woods [1979]:

Answer 70

Where the grant/refusal of inj will end an issue, then the court can consider the likelihood of P succeeding which involves considering the merits of the case.

Question 71

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Where the Trial of Action is Unlikely Cayne v Global Resoures plc [1984]

Answer 71

- Ps were shareholders in D seeking inj to stop issuance of new shares prior to AGM. Grant/refusal would determine crucial vote at AGM. Thus held inappropriate to apply American Cyanamid. - Instead, the court considered the risk of doing injustice. Held D should get chance to argue at trial. Rej

Question 72

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Where the Trial of Action is Unlikely Lansing Linde v Kerr [1991]

Answer 72

- P sought to enforce restraint of trade clause: D attempted to work for competitor before the 12mths - Rej: by time got to trial, period would be expired. Noted discretion to grant+delays in court schedule

Question 73

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Where the Trial of Action is Unlikely Rogers v An Post [2014]:

Answer 73

Refused bc it would deprive D of having his rights determined in full trial

Question 74

# Departure from the Campus Oil Principles - Where an Interlocutory Injunction is Sought in a Public Law Context Okunade v Minister for Justice [2012]:

Answer 74

Seeking II to restrain deportation pending JR hearing. Principles: (1) Arguable case (2) where does greatest risk of injustice lie looking at public interest issues (3) damages adequate? (4) Regard can be had to the relative strength of the applicants case.