Interlocutory Injunctions

Front 1

Stratford and Son Ltd v Lindley

Back 1

Old test requiring plaintiff to show a prima facie case

Front 2

American Cyanamid v Ethicon

Back 2

Lord Diplock set out modern test requiring a serious question to be tried plus the balance of convenience - court should not attempt to resolve conflicts of interest in affidavits

i) irreparable loss - damages an inadequate remedy

ii) if evenly balanced, preserve status quo

iii) last resort: relative strength of cases

Front 3

Savill v Byrne

Back 3

Laffoy J identified serious conflicts of evidence in the affidavits which showed that cross-examination would be necessary at the main trial

Front 4

Campus Oil v Min for Industry and and Energy

Back 4

Cyanamid test followed by Irish courts

Front 5

Okunade v Minister for Justice

Back 5

Campus Oil test could be applied, with suitable adaptations, in the public law context of judicial review

Front 6

Chieftain Construction v Ryan

Back 6

Test requires that a "fair case" is demonstrated. Edwards J confused as to whether he could consider strength of parties cases in considering if there was a fair question to be tried

Front 7

Westman Holdings v McCormack

Back 7

Court held that employees, having recently lost their jobs, would not be in a position to pay damages if an injunction were granted and they subsequently lost at the main trial

Front 8

Dunne v Dunlaoighre-Rathdown Co Co

Back 8

Environmental campaigners sought injunction to prevent construction of a motorway, although local authority claimed their undertaking as to damages was worthless, Supreme Court held that extent of loss injunction would cause had not been demonstrated by proper evidence and granted injunction

Front 9

Curust v Loewe-Lack-Werk

Back 9

Finlay CJ held that mere difficulty in quantifying damages was not enough - must be impossible and because it related to commercial market and loss was financial, this was not satisfied

Front 10

AIB v Diamond

Back 10

Clarke J rejected the idea that court should consider the strength of each party's case - significant additional evidence would be required

Front 11

Ancorde Ltd v Horgan

Back 11

Where hearing took 5 days, Laffoy J supported the view that the strength of the parties cases should be considered

Front 12

Official Custodian for Charities v Mackey

Back 12

Interlocutory injunction will be granted where the defendant has no arguable defence

Front 13

Reynolds v Malocco

Back 13

A "bald" plea of justification as a defence to a defamatory action would not prevent the award of an injunction - there must be some evidence

Front 14

S.33 Defamation Act 2009

Back 14

Statutory provision allowing the High Court to make an order prohibiting publication of a defamatory statement where the defendant has no defence likely to succeed

Front 15

Evans v Carlyle

Back 15

Injunction granted against defamatory graffiti written on a neighbour's wall despite the fact that there was a "just and reasonable" basis that justification defence may succeed

Front 16

O'Brien v RTE

Back 16

Plaintiff required to demonstrate a "convincing case" in order to be granted an injunction preventing the defendant from publishing confidential material relating to his banking affairs

Front 17

Jacob v Irish Amateur Rowing Union

Back 17

The grant or refusal of injunction to allow defendant to enter a qualifying regatta would effectively end dispute, so Laffoy J refused the injunction

Front 18

Rogers v An Post

Back 18

Keane J refused to grant an injunction because it would precluded the defendant from obtaining a decision at the full trial - could only happen in an "exceptional case" where evidence is so strong that refusal would lead to unnecessary waste of time and money or do an overwhelming injustice to the plaintiff

Front 19

S.19(2) Industrial Relations Act 1990

Back 19

Statutory provision stating that where a union has held a secret ballot which favours industrial action, no ex parte application can be granted in favour of the employer or where a fair case in established that action was in furtherance of trade dispute

Front 20

Pesca Valentia v Min for Fisheries

Back 20

Supreme Court held that interlocutory relief could be granted where a law is alleged to be unconstitutional in order to protect constitutional right - presumption of constitutionality and potential damage to common good relevant in applying Campus Oil test

Front 21

Martin v An Bord Pleanála

Back 21

O'Sullivan J was of the view that it would take something "overwhelming" to suspend the application of domestic law pending trial

Front 22

R v Sec of State ex parte Factortame

Back 22

English test for suspending domestic law pending trial - close to old Stratford test