Class Notes (835,108)
Australia (1,845)
Law (441)
JSB171 (400)
All (349)
Lecture

9 Remedies--Injunctions and Declarations

15 Pages
103 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law
Course
JSB171
Professor
All Professors
Semester
Spring

Description
IX Injunctions & Declarations = Equitable order restraining a person from performing or requiring a person to perform an act • Discretionary—if not awarded plaintiff may pursue damages in lieu of injunction: Lord Cairns Act Classification • Mandatory ↔ Prohibitory • Interlocutory/interim ↔ perpetual/final • Quia Timet: to restrain apprehended wrongs (can be heard ex parte): Redland Bricks v Morris • Mareva Injunctions: to prevent defendant from dealing with assets • Anton Piller Orders: to give permission to enter, inspect & seize goods from D’s premises Jurisdiction • Exclusive jurisdiction—equitable remedy for equitable right—no need to prove CL damages inadequate o to prevent an unreasonable restraint of trade: Buckley v Tutty o to prevent a trustee committing a breach of trust: Park v Dawson o to prevent an untrustworthy executor from dealing with estate assets: Bowen v Phillips o to prevent a breach of confidentiality: Duchess of Argyll v Duke of Argyll • Auxiliary jurisdiction—equitable remedy for CL right—must prove CL damages inadequate o To prevent multiplicity of CL actions: Commissioner of Sewers of London v Gellaltly o To restrain infringement of a CL right, contractual, tortious or statutory: Wolverhampton and Walsall Railway v London and North West Railway o To restrain a private nuisance: Vincent v Peaclock o To restrain trespass to land: Graham v KD Morris & Sons 1. Infringement or potential infringement of established legal right • Must be recognised at law: Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Ground v Taylor (right of freedom of speech) o Breach of contract 2. CL damages inadequate (only in auxiliary jurisdiction): = Where CL damages do not reasonably compensate the plaintiff: Evans Marshall v Bertola (continuing trespass of a crane—18 mths—affected resale value of property  injunction granted) Andrew Trotter LWB240 Principles of Equity • Ability to purchase on open market o Shares in private company (SP) v Shares in public company (no SP) o Antique (SP) v common item (no SP) o Price fluctuates greatly → SP may be awarded even for common items: Cook v Rodgers o Mere shortage of supply will not suffice: Cook v Rodgers (Car—demand much higher than supply—mere delay—could be replaced  damages adequate) • D’s prior conduct o ← if indicating a continuous breach → no SP (pointless): Beswick v Beswick • [Ease of calculation of damages] o Calculation of damages inadequate or impossible → inadequate: Adderly v Dixon • Likelihood of D satisfying award of the court: Aristoc Industries v RA Wenham o eg where on brink of insolvency—specific performance better than damages • Type of contract: o Contracts for the sale of land  Presumption—Land is unique—generally damages inadequate → SP generally available: Adderley v Dixon; Dougan v Ley • Even in housing estates, unit blocks o Contracts for the sale of chattels  Presumption—CL damages adequate: Duncuft v Albrecht; Re Schwabacher  Unless item has special qualities— • Shares in private companies: ANZ Executors v humes • Taxi licenses & registration: Dougan v Ley (based on a quota system— only a limited number  damages not adequate → SP) • Unique, rare or of unusual beauty: Falcke v Gray • Particular commercial or sentimental value: Doulton Potteries v Bronette o Contracts to lend or pay money  Damages almost always relevant—money is money: South African Territories v Wallington  Except— • Agreements to provide money on security where money has been advanced • Agreements to pay annuities: Beswick v Beswick • Contracts benefiting a third party: Coulls v Bagot’s • Contracts concerning land: Turner v Bladin 3. [That the legal right to be protected is proprietary in nature] • Previously given to protect only proprietary rights—has now been eroded—no longer an impediment Cardile v LED Builders Contexts • Enforce negative covenants (Promises not to do something): Doherty v Allman • Aiding statutory rights Andrew Trotter LWB240 Principles of Equity NB If— • CL damages inadequate but injunction fails; or • Party seeking to prevent injunction, Look at damages in lieu of injunction (Lord Cairns’ Act)  Andrew Trotter LWB240 Principles of Equity T YPES OF INJUNCTIONS Enforcing negative covenants • A negative covenant is a promise not to do something: ACOA v Cth (seeking injunction to stop collection of union fees—actually a positive covenant ← require them to make a reduction  no injunction) • May be express or implied: ACOA v Cth • Concurrent CL jurisdiction—to restrain repetitions of breaches of contract: Doherty v Allman • No injunction where— o Damages an adequate remedy in a contract for chattels o In essence a positive obligation trying to be enforced: ACOA v Cth o it would result in destitute idleness: ACOA v Cth o The practical result of enforcing negative covenant is to positively enforce the contract for personal services: Page One Records v Britton (eg enforcing restraint of trade → no choice but to fulfil original contract); Corro v Beyond Productions (Negative covenant not to work for competitors  injunction awarded ← could take other forms of employment | not of a long duration | damages not adequate to BP) ← effect of injunction cannot be the same as SP • ← Considerations— (Corro v Beyond Productions) 1. Length of duration of the injunction Longly v Wagna (opera singer—3 month restraint of trade → not destitute idleness → injunction granted) 2. Does the Specific enforcement enforce a contract for personal services 3. Does it force a choice between contract and destitute idleness (ability to work in alternative capacity)  Alternative work available need not be in the same field: Longly v Wagna (opera singer—restrained from singing for other companies but not from other work—not destitute idleness) 4. Adequacy of damages • Constant supervision required (complex contractual terms | roping hostile parties together) JC Williamson v Lukey & Mullholand o Except—  Some building contracts, if— (Wolverhampton Corp v Eimmons) • Work defined in contract • Plaintiff has a substantial interest in having the contract performed • Defendant has obtained possession of the land o Because would result in courts personally supervising contracts: CH Giles v Morris & more litigation: Wolverhampton v London Aiding statutory rights • Injunction may be used to protect against a breach of statutory right (even where not proprietary): Cooney v Kuringai Council • Statute expressly / impliedly excludes any other remedy than those provided → injunction not available: Ramsey v Aberfoyle Manufacturing CO (Aust) • Statute confers private rights on an individual → injunction available: Bradley v Cth Andrew Trotter LWB240 Principles of Equity • Statute confers open standing → gives individual or a body standing even where no private right infringed: Cooney v Kuringai Municipal Council o Giving standing to any person o Giving standing to local authorities: eg s80 TPA; Brisbane CC v Brindles (Council with specific right to close unlawful dance hall) • Statute confers public rights → individuals don’t have standing: Bradley v Cth ↓ Grounds for individual standing • Where individual gets the fiat of the Attorney-General: Cooney v Kuringai Municipal Council • Public right is infringed and— o A private right is also infringed: Boyce v Paddington (eg car blocking street (public nuisance) & blocking person’s driveway (private right)); or o Special damage has been suffered: Boyce v Paddington; or  = any substantial damage that is distinct from or goes beyond that to the general public and is not too remote  Is not relevant that the same damage will affect a particular defendant to a higher degree: Anderson v Cth (importing of sugar—only damage was the increase in sugar price—would affect everyone)  Financial loss due to increase competition will not suffice—D’s actions must have directly affected P’s business: California Theatres v Hoyts o Plaintiff has a special interest: Onus v Alcoa (Aboriginal community sekking injunction to preserve particular relics in accordance with archaeological legislation  cultural significance of relics | emotional interest | long association with the land → special interest → standing)  Mere emotional interest has been said to be insufficient: Conservation Foundation v Cth (must be more than mere intellectual interest or emotional concern) but it appears that the court is now taking a more liberal approach: Onus v Alcoa Breach of Criminal Law • Breach of statute is an offence → no injunction in equity except in exceptional circumstances: Elliot v Seymour (equity has no criminal jurisdiction) • Except where— o Act complained of both an infringement of a public right and a crime: A-G (on the relation of Daniels) v Huber • Offence frequently repeated in disregard of an inadequate penalty: Attorney-General ex. rel. Meat & Allied Trades Federation of Australia v Beck (butchers constantly opening out of hours—5 previous prosecution—no remorse  injunction awarded) • Emergency situations: A-G v Chaundry Andrew Trotter LWB240 Principles of Equity • The statute’s object is the health, safety and welfare of the public: Cooney Mandatory Injunctions = compels to perform an act • Types o Enforcing injunctions—similar to SP: compels someone to fulfil contractual obligations o Restorative injunctions—compels someone to repair the consequences a wrongful act o eg— built a house in contravention of building regulations → demolish it. • Plaintiff to prove— (Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris (gardeners digging on adjoining property causes landslide—damage suffered $1.5K | cost of repairs $30K → no injunction)) o Strong probability of grave damage in the future o Damages inadequate o Court’s discretion favours an order having regard to conduct of D and costs of restorative work  ← good working rule: Shelter v City of London per Smith LJ o Injunction clearly worded—D’s obligations clear Interlocutory Injunctions = to maintain the status quo until main hearing • May be applied for ex parte 1. Serious question to be tried = that the claim is not vexatious or frivolous: American Cyanamid v Ethicon o No longer a need to prove a ‘prima facie entitlement to relief’ (Ethicon lowered the standard) o No requirement to evaluate probability of success at trial • A ‘triable issue’: Murphy v Lush o ← ‘triable issue’ = ‘not vexatious or frivolous’: Qld Industrial Steel (interlocutory injunction to restrain breach of restraint of trade—concerns about confidential information  triable issue—whether restraint of trade clause enforceable | balance of convenience—D would lose new job, but could be compensated by damages ↔ difficult to quantify potential loss from breach of confidentiality | undertaking given → injunction granted) 2. Balance of Convenience favours granting the injunction • = balance—damage suffered by plaintiff if injunction not granted ↔ damage to defendant if granted: Beecham • Factors— (American Cyanamid) o Look at potential damage suffered by each party o damages adequate if plaintiff successful at trial → no injunction Andrew Trotter LWB240 Principles of Equity  eg—damages may not be adequate where difficult to quantify damages: Qld Industrial Steel (breach of confidentiality) o alternative remedies available → no injunction o P gives undertaking to pay damages to D if unsuccessful at trial → injunction  May be refused in the absence of such an undertaking: Cambridge Cr Corp v Surfers Paradise Forests  Or where P has no capacity to pay damages so undertaking meaningless in any case o Stronger case necessary where—  Mandatory injunction  Interlocutory injunctions with a final effect  Injunction against public interest (eg to prevent alleged defamation) o Interests of third parties in exceptional circumstances: Clarke v Japan Machines o Delay in bringing action (casts doubt on reality of plaintiff’s injury) o [Merits of the case] Qua Timet Injunctions = to prevent threatened unlawful interference with the exercise of the plaintiff’s rights • Plaintiff must show— • strong probability that defendant’s actions will cause imminent and substantial damage to the plaintiff’s property or business: Redlands Bricks v Morris Mareva Injunctions = restrains a defendant from removing any assets from within the jurisdiction or otherwise dealing with assets either within or outside the jurisdiction: Mareva Compania Naverua SA v Internati
More Less

Related notes for JSB171

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit