(2014) (“Spry”), p 333, cited with approval in, among other authorities, Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775, paras 20-21 and Cartier International AG v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 658; [2017] Bus LR 1, para 47 (both citing the equivalent passage in the 5 th ed (1997)), and Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd [2021] UKPC 24; [2023] AC 389 (“ Broad Idea ”), para 57. The breadth of the court’s power is reflected in the terms of section 37(1) of the 1981 Act, which states that:
“The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.”
As Lord Scott explained in Fourie v Le Roux (ibid), that provision, like its statutory predecessors, merely confirms and restates the power of the courts to grant injunctions which existed before the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (36 & 37 Vict c 66) (“the 1873 Act”) and still exists. That power was transferred to the High Court by section 16 of the 1873 Act and has been preserved by section 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 and section 19(2)(b) of the 1981 Act.
18. It is also relevant in the context of this appeal to note that, as a court of inherent jurisdiction, the High Court possesses the power, and bears the responsibility, to act so as to maintain the rule of law.
19. Like any judicial power, the power to grant an injunction must be exercised in accordance with principle and any restrictions established by judicial precedent and rules of court. Accordingly, as Lord Mustill observed in Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] AC 334, 360-361:
“Although the words of section 37(1) [of the 1981 Act] and its forebears are very wide it is firmly established by a long history of judicial self-denial that they are not to be taken at their face value and that their application is subject to severe constraints.”
Nevertheless, the principles and practice governing the exercise of the power to grant injunctions need to and do evolve over time as circumstances change. As Lord Scott observed in Fourie v Le Roux at para 30, practice has not stood still and is unrecognisable from the practice which existed before the 1873 Act.
20. The point is illustrated by the development in recent times of several new kinds of injunction in response to the emergence of particular problems: for example, the
Page 7
320
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator