Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Shepherd Homes Ltd v Sandham |
Suggestion of a stricter test for mandatory injunctions: court should feel "a high degree of assurance" that at trial the injunction will have been rightly granted |
|
|
Maha Lingham v HSE |
Fennelly J: ordinary test of a fair case to be tried is "not sufficient" - necessary to show that applicant the applicant has a strong case that is likely to succeed in the main hearing |
|
|
Campus Oil v Minister for Industry and Energy |
Case setting out test for interlocutory injunction involved a mandatory injunction but it was an "exceptional case" according to O'Higgins CJ |
|
|
O'Murchú t/a Talknology v Eircell Ltd |
Geoghegan J considered that a distinction should be made between restorative and enforcing mandatory injunctions - restorative mandatory injunctions may require a stricter test - court should attempt to retain status quo |
|
|
Shelbourne Hotel Holdings Ltd v Torriam Hotel Operating Company Ltd |
Kelly J noted disagreement in case law and preferred the view that the court should adopt whatever course would carry the lower risk of injustice if it turns out to have been the "wrong" decision |
|
|
National Commercial Bank Jamaica v Olint Corporation |
Lord Hoffman restated House of Lords position that American Cyanimid should not be confined to prohibitory injunctions - court should take whichever course causes the least "irremediable prejudice" to one party, and mandatory injunctions are usually more likely to do so. Arguments over prohibitive or mandatory injunctions are "barren" - box-ticking approaches must be avoided |
|
|
Tola Capital Management LLC v Linders (No.1) |
High Court arguably applied the "box-ticking" approach |
|
|
AIB v Diamond |
Clarke J argued that the general principle underlying interlocutory injunctions is to take the course of action which carries "the least risk of injustice"
|
|
|
Okunade v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform |
Clarke J was of the view that there was a tension between the practical requirement not to engage in a detailed analysis of fact at an interlocutory stage and the high standard of the "fair issue to be tried" requirement |
|
|
AG v Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital Board |
At the perpetual stage the test for a quia timet injunction is stricter than an ordinary injunction - action against building of a smallpox hospital required "proof of actual and real danger, almost amounting to moral certainty" |
|
|
Szabo v ESAT Digiphone |
Geoghegan J considered that a quia timet injunction would require "a proven substantial risk of danger" - at an interlocutory stage, the Campus Oil test is applicable although he declined to apply it on the facts and accepted that harm to children was "highly improbable at the very least" |
